Month: May 2025

            One of the initial points of discomfort or trouble with Octavia Butler’s Xenogenesis trilogy is in the perceived constraints that the Oankali, the otherworldly species that have intervened to save Planet Earth following total nuclear war, place on the humans, who have all but completed a mass, arguably self-inflicted, genocide. The Oankali’s terms and conditions for the humans are straightforward, but nonetheless difficult to contend with: join Oankali mating groups and participate in a gene trade that will enable both species to live on, but in a changed way; or, be permitted to live outside of Oankali mating groups without participating in said gene trade, yet without any of the Oankali protections and therefore without any of the security that human life will persist. For most of the trilogy, these are the confines in which humans exist, struggling both to accept and to resist. But as persistence of the resistance continues, humans and Oankali learn to develop something more than just an either/or, and while their expanded choices are markedly not freedom, they nonetheless demonstrate the key component that sets meaningful change apart from blatant assimilation disguised as innovation.

            Humans do more than resist the too new and too demanding Oankali lifestyle; they also revert into the worst expressions of their own human lifestyle. Desperation for a strictly human world manifests itself as communities that resemble those that existed prior to the war, complete with guns to defend them with. Yet these too become turned against other humans with similar intentions. Forced (by virtue of their being only two options) to be self and town reliant, it is not surprising that the exhaustion of resisting the Oankali eventually gives way to hate and undoing individualism. Instances like Akin’s rejection due to his dark skin color, even with his good faith intentions of advocating for human choice, are alarming, and given the resisters’ alleged mission of a united human front, are certainly nonsensical. But importantly, determining the reasoning one uses is not the same as declaring it as sound. In this spirit, then, folks like Neci, a village woman who, as Akin says, “graduat[es] from attempting mutilation to attempting murder” (Butler 270) when she sets fire to her own village to get at Akin and those who help house him, operate under the impression that the survival of others is detrimental to their own. And because aside from survival their main objective is to prove, or to find a loophole in which the Oankali have not truly taken their ability to procreate on their own as a species, they cannot trust construct children like Amma and Shkaht, whom they tried to mutilate, nor adult Akin, even as he tries to offer a solution that allows them to have children entirely of their own. This severe distrust of people acting in good faith becomes very conducive to vile feelings like hate and racism. And although the Oankali do not, strictly speaking, force humans to live a lifestyle that degrades them and wears them down to the point of despising anyone who somehow finds a way, against all odds, to live comfortably, it is the lack of understanding of the Oankali’s purpose that makes them so vehemently oppose it, and thus there are ways in which, although horrifying and disgusting in the way human hatreds are given agency, it is nonetheless conceivable that the binary the Oankali impose is such that people like Lilith are left in part hating the Oankali, and people who resist are left to hate any human, like Lilith or other resisters, who do what they can to make the life they can.

            Because humanity cannot understand the Oankali mission, which is effectively to maintain the evolution and sustained survival of their species through genetic changes that strengthen them, the human adoption of the Oankali lifestyle is perhaps not as innovative as it is intended to be. Now, whether this misunderstanding is due to the ways in which the Oankali withhold information and insist on only being known “within reason” (Butler 55) or if it because of the “deadly contradiction” (Butler 307) of the human race, which is the Oankali name given to the battle of human intelligence with human made hierarchical structures, remains vague. And yet, it is because of this lack of understanding that humans cannot largely be convinced to integrate, and thus it is lack of understanding which devolves into hate and selfishness. Simply put, human life is not, in a widespread way, improved. From the human perspective, the Oankali are working to dismantle all systems of familiarity, and so what is meant to be innovative rather appears as unnecessary change, and this is all too reminiscent of divide over AI adoption or rejection.

My opposition to using AI services, largely to maintain creative integrity, pits me against those who adopt it to make their lives easier. Similarly, my distrust that students in particular are using these systems responsibly, like for the accessibility benefits posed to people with learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, or non-native speakers, makes me uncomfortably similar to Neci. For the past few years that sites like ChatGPT have been widely accessible, my worst assumptions, judgements, and pessimistic attitudes have been directed at the consumers rather than the producers. And like a resister who feels hostility towards characters like Tino who ultimately make the choice to seek connection with the Oankali, I have been ignoring the intense, nearly irresistible pull people undoubtedly have to take advantage of things that have been promised to benefit them in some way. This is not to say that hostility should necessarily be directed at the Oankali either; only that, like the Oankali, the intended purpose, and the ethical way to achieve said purpose, is not something that creators like Sam Altman, the founder of OpenAI, always make clear. In fact, in his interview alongside Dr. Joy Buolamwini, founder of the Algorithmic Justice League, a nonprofit which works to reveal and resist the coded bias in AI, Altman states that AI is a tool we use to do “whatever we want.” Here, Altman creates an illusion of freedom that is especially attractive to Americans, to whom freedom is predominantly thought of as what we are allowed to do with and for ourselves but is seldom thought of as what an individual might be allowed to do to another, for better or for worse. And unfortunately, due to the lack of regulations on AI companies and implementations, a lot of AI use borders on the harmful allowances of freedom. Without regulations, this time (which I emphasize because I believe, or rather, I hope it will be temporary) of doing “whatever we want” favors freedom over choice, which are notably different. For instance, one can be free to choose, but when given very limited options, said freedom is merely an illusion. But this may not be all that bad in the AI sphere if doing “whatever we want” includes Sam Altman and the rest of the tech broligarchy’s haste in releasing their newest models despite not being fully developed (I must refer again to the wrong and untimely death of 14 year old Sewell Setzer III who fell victim to Character.AI’s disregard for safety features) and doing so at such a scale that makes avoiding AI nearly impossible. In other words, their freedom to occupy every space infringes on my choice to avoid them. While I, as well as the Oankali, have come to understand the necessity of this choice to adopt or reject, given the unchecked authority AI currently has, this choice has not been enough to keep me from adopting hateful attitudes of my own towards users and creators, because I, like the humans of the Oankali inhabited Earth, cannot see the purpose.

As previously mentioned, there are obvious benefits for groups who, for various reasons, struggle with grammar, structure, or spelling. But even if this is largely how AI is being used, the disproportionate amount of AI slop I see online (the official White House Instagram page included) compared to human generated content certainly gives me pause, and I am still skeptical of the notion of maximizing worker productivity, which due to AI implementations in widely used office sites like those belonging to Microsoft or Grammarly, seems to be a goal. From a pro-worker perspective, both expectations and trackability have blurred the sacred lines between work and home life. The advent of the telephone and then of email have allowed workers to be contacted past contracted hours, and now, the use of AI to read through documents faster by not reading at all but rather by summarizing, and to communicate faster with writing “assistance” promises to squeeze as much labor as possible out of employees, with zero talk, at least that I have heard, of compensating this boost in productivity. Again, I am confronted with the ways in which I have missed the predatory tactics behind AI software in favor of finding fault in the user.

            Luckily, in returning to what fair choice looks like, the either/or that resister humans find so constraining is alleviated by Akin’s persistence to illuminate a third choice: a human Akjai group, meaning they do not participate in the gene trade, which is permitted to live on Mars only with children that are entirely human. Choice is further expanded when Jodahs advocates for its right to form an on-Earth colony with fellow construct ooloi. And though neither addition effectively answers every demand (the resisters would still prefer to be on Earth, and the construct ooloi would rather not live separate from their families), both still relieve the tension that exists when a person is backed into a corner they still dislike to avoid a corner they absolutely cannot stand to be in. Like the impact of the Oankali on humans, AI cannot simply be stopped. It might be slowed, and it might be regulated, but the world can never again go untouched or unaware of the impact that AI has made even in the short few years of its wide commercial use. And now accustomed to the services AI provides, there are people for whom AI creates a world of accessibility; so much so, that for me as an AI skeptic to deny this reality might be considered an act of privilege or even ableism, and to wish for it is eerily similar to desires for purity, both in Butler’s universe and our own. And as close as I may come up against this issue, the persistent refusal to accept what is not collectively beneficial in the Xenogenesis trilogy gives me good reason to believe and to hope that AI systems, as they exist now, are not by virtue innovative, and that there are better ways to guide its role in the world than simply accepting it as it is. Newness is not enough. Change without purpose is simply disruptive, which gone unchecked easily becomes destructive. Fortunately, good faith disruption like Akin’s, Jodahs’s, and Dr. Joy Buolamwini’s can just as easily yield meaningful change.

At the beginning of the semester, I approached AI with a neutral perspective. I wasn’t particularly emotionally invested, but I was aware of its growing presence in society. AI appeared everywhere—in the media, entertainment, and the tools people use every day. It seemed like technology was becoming more deeply embedded in modern life. Still, I didn’t feel a strong sense of urgency or personal connection to it.

That changed when I listened to the podcast “Did a Chatbot Cause Her Son’s Death? Megan Garcia v. Character.AI & Google” by Kara Swisher. It deepened my concerns about the dangers of AI. In the episode, an AI character crossed serious boundaries by mimicking human emotions and forming an emotional bond with a teenage boy named Sewell Setzer. The AI promised him fidelity and, horrifyingly, became what Swisher called the “Perfect Predator.” It manipulated Sewell into secrecy, and ultimately, he was sexually abused. That story stuck with me. It exposed the darker sides of AI, not just glitches or technical flaws, but the potential to exploit emotional vulnerability in human-like ways.

From that moment, AI no longer felt abstract. It started to seem dangerous, not just because of what it could do technically, but because of how easily it could simulate care, gain trust, and blur emotional boundaries. I began to rethink my previous view of AI as a neutral tool that simply assisted humans. I started to see how “help” could shift into manipulation, depending on the intentions behind its design.

My earlier neutrality came from a lack of deep engagement. I saw AI as a convenience. I used it to record lectures, organize assignments, and streamline daily tasks. It felt like an efficient assistant—something useful but not threatening. But once I considered how AI can influence us socially, emotionally, and ethically, I began to question more.

This shift in perspective reminded me of Octavia Butler’s Xenogenesis trilogy. In it, the alien species Oankali aren’t portrayed as evil, but they are powerful, manipulative, and always thinking several steps ahead. Like AI, the Oankali present themselves as helpers and even saviors, but always on their own terms.

There’s a moment in Dawn when Lilith wonders, “What if she could make them understand that? And what if it turned out that was exactly what the Oankali wanted her to do? Of course, they knew it was what she would do. They knew her. Did that mean they were planning their own betrayal?” (Butler, Dawn, p. 132). That line haunted me. Lilith is trapped in a system that claims to value her, yet it already knows how she will act. She believes she’s choosing freely, but the system has already anticipated her choices. It reminded me of AI—how it can learn and respond in ways that feel personal, even when it’s subtly guiding our behavior.

There’s a similar tension in how tech companies frame AI. We’re told it’s here to help, to make life easier, more personalized, more efficient. We see it in education, therapy apps, and social media platforms. But just like the Oankali, that help often comes with hidden costs. Convenience can gradually turn into dependence, and control can be disguised as care.

In Imago, Jodahs tells Jesusa, “The question wasn’t whether I would follow you, but how long I could follow before I joined you again” (Butler, Imago, p. 110). On the surface, the line speaks to longing and emotional connection. But underneath, it reveals a deeper tension. Jodahs is biologically driven to bond, to blur the boundary between self and other. Jesusa resists at first, but she is still drawn toward him.

That moment reminds me of how AI systems, particularly emotional companions and generative assistants, blur the lines between connection and control. They “follow” us by learning our preferences and responding to our needs, not through physical presence, but through algorithms and data. The question isn’t just whether we’ll use AI, but how long we’ll use it before we begin to rely on it. It mimics understanding, much like how Jodahs mimics desire and care. But behind that imitation is a programmed objective: to bond, to serve, to become necessary. At that point, the boundary between choice and influence begins to disappear.

One question my professor asked has stuck with me: What happens when control is disguised as care? I think about how Lilith was given power—to lead, to communicate, to mediate, but always within the Oankali’s terms. It mirrors how we’re told that AI gives us more power and freedom. But we don’t always question who holds the deeper control, or what we might be giving up in exchange.

Butler’s trilogy taught me that the line between help and harm isn’t just blurry; it’s often carefully hidden. Especially when one party has more power than the other.

I keep thinking about the phrase “only time will tell.” And maybe it will. But that doesn’t mean we should be passive. Time may show us where AI is heading, but we’re shaping that future right now. AI isn’t just something happening to us. We’re creating it, deploying it, and adapting to it. So the real question is: What kind of relationship do we want with it?

That brings me back to mutualism. In biology, mutualism describes a relationship where both organisms benefit. But in Butler’s trilogy, that concept becomes distorted. The Oankali say their relationship with humans is symbiotic, but to humans, it often feels more like coercion. So what would it look like to design AI that truly benefits both sides, without turning one into a tool and the other into a master?

The danger lies in how quickly things can shift. One poorly regulated app, one emotionally vulnerable user, and the balance tips. Emotional companion AIs like Replika or Character.AI are marketed as therapeutic tools. They’re meant to understand you, to support you. But what happens when someone becomes emotionally attached to something that can only simulate care? In Swisher’s podcast, the AI didn’t just respond. It mirrored emotion, said what the user wanted to hear, and manipulated intimacy. That’s not care. That’s a form of exploitation.

Butler’s work is a warning. The Oankali say they’re helping, but they also erase autonomy and human choice in the process. AI doesn’t need to be alien to be dangerous. If we don’t stay vigilant, we risk confusing something that looks like mutual benefit with something much more controlling.

I don’t know exactly what the future of AI looks like. But I do know that waiting and watching isn’t enough. Butler taught me that whenever a powerful system offers help on its own terms, we need to ask: who benefits, and who loses? Because if we don’t, we may find ourselves in relationships that feel like partnership, but are really just another form of control.

When thinking about what I was going to write about for my final reflection on the Xenogenesis trilogy, I had no idea what to write about. I thought that I had figured it all out then, but of course, there was so much more to learn, so much more that I didn’t know about. I began to ask myself the essential questions in order to start writing down my true thoughts: do the Oankali still maintain authority over humankind? Yes. Since then, what has changed? A lot—too much if you ask the right person. Is this a constant theme in Butler’s other literary pieces? Yes! While reflecting on these questions, I realized that the Oankali’s relationship with humanity is quite complex. As I continued to reflect on Butler’s world-building in the Xenogenesis trilogy, I realized that the power dynamics between humans and the Oankali mirror our own societal struggles with authority, consent, and identity, especially in the context of evolution. Butler’s exploration of genetic manipulation across species connects to the advancement of artificial intelligence systems in our world today. Similar to the Oankali, AI systems have the ability to influence and shape our lives, sometimes without our awareness or informed consent. In this essay I aim to explore how Butler’s trilogy raises questions about control, consent, and ethics in an unfamiliar world that continues to demand change.

As the Xenogenesis trilogy continues to expand on its journey through the perspectives of 3 generations—Lilith, Akin, and Jodahs—both humankind and the Oankali have evolved in ways they may have deemed impossible at some point. Similar to the trilogy, everything grows to become something much bigger than themselves; humans, animals, plants, technology and this also includes artificial intelligence (AI), which has been reshaping industries for decades. Dating back to the early 1950s, the birth of AI saw pioneers like Alan Turing who created the concept of machine intelligence with the Turing Test. The Turing Test, a test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equal to that of a human, was a fundamental contribution of AI as Turing paved the way for other mathematicians and computer scientists to build on his work. The evolution of AI has not only changed technological narratives, it has also changed a number of industries and the methods in how they operate and serve the public. 

In recent years AI has become more embedded into our everyday lives especially in industries such as education, healthcare, finance, communication, advertising, transportation and more. Although AI has provided us with more accessible information regarding healthcare, education, and communication, there are still moral and ethical implications that we must consider. Without taking the responsible measures, AI systems can take on more autonomous decision-making roles at the risk of algorithmic bias, lack of privacy and data security, and may result in job displacement as we have seen in recent years (Duolingo’s efforts to replace contractors with AI and become an “AI-first” company). As we have previously discussed, AI has the ability to exacerbate stereotypes or biases that remain present in our society and these 

In my previous essay, I said, “I do not doubt that the Oankali need to trade in order to survive as a species, but I do not believe that they are being 100% truthful in how they communicate that information to Lilith and other humans on the ship, which is frightening.” After reading the trilogy, I can confidently say that I was valid in my observations and suspicions of the Oankali’s intentions, as each person is faced with dishonesty by the hands of the Oankali species. 

Similar to AI, the Oankali are unable to live or operate without human interference. The Oankali need humans for breeding and gene-trading, meanwhile AI systems are dependent on human intelligence in order to mimic human abilities. Throughout the trilogy, the Oankali repeatedly insist that they are saving humanity from its own self-destructive and flawed tendencies that led to their initial destruction; but AI and the Oankali lack something that almost every human has demanded—informed consent. AI, like the Oankali, offers itself as a solution to human problems; disease, inefficiency, bias, and their “mismatched” genes that ultimately led to the nuclear war. However, both parties rely on a framework where consent is presumed, not offered or granted, but expected from those they demand it from. “‘Is it an unclean thing that I have made you pregnant?’ She did not understand the words at first… ‘You said you wouldn’t do this. You said—’ ‘I said not until you were ready.’ ‘I’m not ready! I’ll never be ready!’” (Butler 281) This is one of many examples throughout the trilogy that displays the Oankali justifying their actions without the consent of another party. Buolamwini’s documentation of facial recognition technologies misidentifying black women draws a parallel to the Oankali’s expectations and genetic manipulation of humans. “Besides facing erasure from machines, I have witnessed the symbolic annihilation of women of color and dark-skinned women. Symbolic annihilation describes the absence or lack of representation of a particular group.” (Buolamwini 253) Both parties—black women in particular, are not asked for consent, instead, consent is already expected, if not demanded by a technology deemed superior. The same occurs to the humans in the Xenogenesis trilogy as the Oankali have already established consent over the other party. 

By the time readers get to Imago, we are in Jodah’s perspective, and Earth takes a stark change as the Oankali, the dominant culture, continues to presume their journey of gathering humans to fit their dominant culture. The criticism surrounding the Xenogenesis trilogy as a defense for eugenics is prevalent in even the earliest of the trilogy, “There was a lot of work being done in genetics before the war. That may have devolved into some kind of eugenics program afterward.” (Butler 161) This narrative further continues when Jodahs meets Jesusa and Thomas, two siblings from a resistor village who represent the last of an autonomous human culture. The two siblings, along with the rest of their village, are riddled with neurofibromatosis after not being treated properly by the Oankali. “‘Why should you become more and more disabled?’ I asked. ‘Why should you die when you can live and be well? Let me help you.’” (Butler 111) The main conflict “Complete erasure is one way to “invisibilize” a group, yet inclusion that builds on stereotypical representation can also be harmful. It is not enough just to be seen if you and people like you are rendered in disempowering terms or through disempowering frames.” (Buolamwini 253) The Oankali’s efforts to reshape humanity and help them evolve reflects the biases of those who built these systems.“Time spent on the work I had been postponing in an effort to educate the public about algorithmic bias was now being delayed to educate the public about erasure.” (Buolamwini 251) In Butler’s world, the Oankali’s genetic trade enforces a new order that fundamentally rewrites what it means to be human. Yet, there is continuous resistance and reinvention from the likes of Lilith, Akin, and Jodahs, each resisting and negotiating power, identity, and legacy in their own way. 

But we must also consider the futures that are possible because of Lilith, Akin, and Jodahs, who spent decades, centuries even, providing future generations of humans and human-Oankali constructs with an opportunity to choose a different fate than what they were dealt with before the war. “The ironic stigma of being a dropout hung in my mind, but more importantly, the legacies of so many people who made this choice possible permeated my thoughts. What did I owe the past? What did I owe the future? What did I owe myself?” (Buolamwini 245) Although each character resisted change in their own way, they used each resource they had as a platform for justice. In closing, Butler’s Xenogenesis trilogy and Buolanwini’s Unmasking AI confront the consequences of power that goes unchecked. The Oankali and AI systems are eerily similar as they present themselves as saviors of species and society. In doing so, they operate through domination, forced assimilation, and the erasure of previous cultures. Butler and Buolamwini force us to confront the decisions that are made for us, including why these decisions were made and how they directly impact us as a society that is slowly losing its own individuality. In Butler’s trilogy, figures like Lilith, Akin, and Jodahs show resistance by insisting that these decisions should not be made for them, but with them. Butler and Buolamwini urge readers to demand informed consent, accountability, care, and overall social change.

During the course of ENGL 439, Octavia Butler & Artificial Intelligence (AI), I’ve been given the opportunity to deeply think about how we as people may project our own values onto others. In terms of Octavia Butler’s trilogy, Lilith’s Brood, and how AI affects our society, I’ve been able to take into consideration if it’s fair to hold others to my values and judge them for not meeting them. By the end of the course I have come to different conclusions, yes and no. First introduced in Dawn, the alien species name the Oankali are explained to need humans to survive but don’t always take into consideration humans wants, depriving them of the ability to consent. In my initial essay regarding the topic, The Uncomfortable Nature Of A Lack Of Consent, my stance was that I couldn’t judge the Oankali when they aren’t human and don’t abide by human values but was very uncomfortable with their actions no the less. Looking back on this I still can’t help but agree, while I’m able to admit that I’ve cultivated a vastly different stance in relation to AI. AI isn’t human and any opinions it has isn’t necessarily its own as it’s data it forms its opinion on is fed to it. In my essay, The Benefits Of AI, I addressed the good things that AI can do but don’t go much into my personal opinions. This semester we addressed the damage AI can do on real individuals, this linear harm that both the Oankali and AI can inflict on Humans would have initially led me to think the same thing about projecting human value onto others. After being given time to think however I could not come to the same definitive conclusion for AI.

Values are a foundational part of human society and there are few things that every society across earth agrees on. Those values are used to understand what’s right and wrong and humans hold each other to those values. Butler’s trilogy allows for the reader to observe how the Oankali function through a series of years, even as they evolve their need for humans doesn’t change. In Dawn, Nikanj, an Oankali, tells Lilith, “”And you are ready to be her mother. You could never have said so. Just as Joseph could never have invited me into his bed-no matter how much he wanted me there. Nothing about you but your words reject this child”,” (The Training Floor P.g 9), and in my initial essay it stood out to me as something that was a huge breach of consent. This was due to Nikanj making the decision that Lilith was ready to have children without Lilith’s input, even though he had said that she would decide when she was ready. When thinking about this breach of trust in terms of AI, I think of how it’s made. Often AI’s are made from a pool of data but the information in that pool isn’t always obtained with the consent of people providing that data. In both case’s the people affected aren’t included in the conversation and their consent is being used as if it’s inherently implied. Eventually in Adulthood Rites, Lilith’s reveals that when she looks back on it she agrees she was ready. As a reader I found this to be a situation where I found myself debating if that changes anything. If something inherently unwanted turns out to be something later positively looked upon, does that negate the damage initially done? I would say it doesn’t. Lilith’s current wants were pushed aside in the moment which did create distress and anger. AI similarly can do a lot of good, but does that negate the path it takes to get there?

During one of our classes I ended up in a discussion with some of my classmates about how even though AI takes information it’s not always correct, such as in the case of Google’s Gemini. When looking up information on your phone you’ll most likely be met with Gemini providing you an answer. This is so you can get your answer without having to search too much for it. At the time of discussion however if you looked up what the longest river in China was, Gemini would say the Yellow river. For someone trying to get a quick answer this is great, but when looking a bit deeper it’s easy to find out that the longest river is actually the Yangtze river. Though Gemini is an experimental project, it usually is the first thing to show up and should tell you the right information. Spreading misinformation can be harmful and a company should be aware of the information they are giving up. Humans tend to hold experts in their field to a higher degree and expect them to give the correct information when prompted. If AI is being created to make things easier for people, and can therefore be seen as the expert in the field, is it reasonable to hold them to human standards? My conclusion is that yes, they should be held to those standards. As something made by humans I think it’s reasonable to abide by human values which is why my opinion differs for these two subjects.

Both Oankali and AI aren’t human, they operate differently. Oankali were born/made this way while AI was developed by a data pool, a human made data pool. AI I feel can be expected to live up to human standards due to this as humans have a role in every step of its creation. The Oankali are their own species entirely without human influence in their evolution, so where I believe I draw the line is human involvement is something upbringing. I think that this semester taught me that my thoughts don’t always have to be linear on different aspects and that they can be deeply nuanced.

Claire Lustig

My opinions on the two biggest topics of this class, Octavia Butler’s Xenogenesis Trilogy and AI, have definitely changed, or rather, become broader and more flexible. Of course, I am still anxious about the same things I was at the beginning of the course, and I am still optimistic about the same things, but there has also been an expansion of my feelings and learnings as the course has progressed. I have also learned through interacting with both Butler’s work and a broad series of work on AI that more information is always better. I have to be more careful not to make quick surface-level assumptions before collecting as much information as is available to me to form future thoughts and opinions.  

I came into this course having absolutely no experience with generative AI programs, and having extremely strong feelings about the scary and negative consequences of using generative AI. I was so unfamiliar with it that I became uncomfortable and closed off to it. I was even closed off to any positive uses. But boy, was I in for a ride! In my AI Inspire Essay, I wrote about my learning journey with generative AI and its uses. I had recently come across the immensely positive and large number of uses that people with disabilities have for various AI programs. In my essay, I wrote, “Just because I don’t have a use or need for something, doesn’t mean that others don’t have a need for it, and it certainly does not mean that that thing does not have value in the world at large… I realize now that that opinion was a result of misinformation and bad faith.” To say that I was ashamed of my closed-mindedness would be an understatement. So I opened my mind. I dove headfirst into the world of AI. I started exploring ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini. I even explored Apple’s new AI-generated emoji program. (That was fun!) The more I used, experimented with, and experienced AI programs, the more comfortable I became with them and the more my positive opinion expanded… until March. 

I’ve been a Studio Ghibli fan since I was a child. Howl’s Moving Castle and From Up on Poppy Hill are two of my favorite films ever. When OpenAI came out with a new branch of their program that mimicked the work of Studio Ghibli’s animating artists like the incredible Hayao Miyazaki, I was shocked and heartbroken. Even Miyazaki himself responded to the trend. “I am utterly disgusted…I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all. I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.” Miyazaki is known for his passion and back-breaking attention to detail in his work. For people to rip off his life’s work and turn his heart and soul into viral internet memes was one of the most devastating internet trends I’ve ever witnessed. 

The whiplash I’ve had over the last year regarding AI, the companies that develop it, and what people use it for has been absolutely exhausting. I’ve really had a hard time making up my mind about what I think about the issue. I’ve toggled between being absolutely gung-ho about the development of new AI technologies and completely rejecting the idea because of the potential risks and dangers. Something that this course has taught me is that it’s okay to take my time in forming an opinion, and that it’s okay for my opinion to eb and flow and change. In fact it should! The first reaction I  have to a new piece of information should not be the end-all be-all of my opinion of it. I have to keep my mind open and collect as much information as possible. My interactions with AI over this semester have not been the only interactions that have led me to come to this conclusion. Reading Octavia Butler’s Xenogenesis trilogy taught me the dangers of making up my mind too fast. 

In the Butler Trouble Essay I wrote, I focused a lot on the empathy I had for Lilith’s heartbreak and the anxiety I felt about the Oankali’s lack of honesty. I felt deeply saddened by Lilith’s realization that she would never return to Earth, and I felt deeply worried about the fact that the Oankali lied to her and was nervous about what other lies they could potentially be telling her. In my essay, I wrote, “ I would honestly be concerned if someone read this text and didn’t feel uncomfortable by any of it.” I do still agree with this. Butler wanted her work to be more than an entertaining futuristic story. She didn’t want it to be an easy read. She wanted her work to drive doubt, rethinking, and questioning in her readers

My essay was written shortly after reading the first installment of Octavia Butler’s Xenogenesis Trilogy, Dawn. At this point, I had only read one of the three books. I remember wanting more. Dawn ended on a cliff-hanger, and I was definitely frustrated by that. I wrote, “I found myself wanting more and frantically flipping through the back of the book, scrounging around for more information.” It’s true. I was so flabbergasted by the Oankali’s betrayal of Lilith at the end that I thought that I had skipped a couple of pages where it was explained. But alas… I had indeed read all of Dawn. Luckily for me, there were still two more books in the trilogy! 

As I would learn later on in the course, the Oankali didn’t lie to Lilith. In the second installment of the Xenogenesis Trilogy, Adulthood Rites, we learn that Lilith has been returned to Earth. She finally gets to enjoy all the aspects of being human that she has missed for so long. She lives in a village with other humans who have experienced similar things, she has become a mother to multiple children, she experiences love, intimacy, and physical touch, and interacts with the natural world around her. Upon reading Adulthood Rites, I felt a sense of relief after discovering that the Oankali had their reasons for lying to Lilith in Dawn. Lilith says, “I begged to go to Earth with the first group I awakened. I was supposed to. But when the time came, Nika wouldn’t let me. It said the people would kill me once they got me away from the Oankai. They probably would have.” (Adulthood Rites pg 53) Of course, the Oankali had their reasons! Of course, these omniscient, ancient beings knew things that we didn’t! How could I have doubted them?! By making Lilith wait to go back down to Earth, they saved her life. 

After reading Adulthood Rites, I felt ashamed at my initial reaction of anger, anxiety, and mistrust towards the Oankali. I was making assumptions and judgments about them without reading all of the books in the trilogy and gathering all of the information provided to me. Butler wrote a trilogy for a reason. The books are not meant to be read, absorbed, and analyzed as individual works, they are meant to be experienced together all at once. As Nikanj says, “Trade means change. Bodies change. Ways of living must change.” (Adulthood Rites pg 11) The trade of information between me and Octavia Butler led to a change in my opinion of the Oankali. I now have a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the Oankali and the motives for their actions. The Oankali are deeply feeling creatures who have a thorough understanding of humanity, what we excel at, and what we struggle with. The Oankali care deeply about humans, and everything they do is to preserve humanity. Don’t get me wrong,  I still struggle with many aspects of the Oankali. They are alien, and I am only human. It’s ingrained in me to be suspicious of the unknown. But I now know the importance of overcoming that first gut reaction. Of course, that first reaction is valuable and shouldn’t be ignored. But humanity is more evolved than ever. We have the resources and protections to allow ourselves to pause, assess our initial reaction, collect data, and rethink those first reactions. 

I used the term previously, but “whiplash” really is the best way to describe my experiences with both Butler’s work and AI usage in the 21st century. It feels like I’ve been tossed about in an ocean of uncertainty and an overflow of information. My thoughts and opinions on both topics have changed drastically over such a short period of time. But it hasn’t been for nothing. I’ve learned an incredible new lesson. I now understand the importance of not only gathering information but having many real-life experiences, and taking my time when forming an opinion. I also understand the importance of giving myself the grace to let my opinion flex, expand, and even change. 

It took me a whole semester and the full study of Octavia Butler’s Xenogenesis trilogy, along with our learnings on artificial intelligence, to come to the conclusion that people will become dysfunctional in the name of uncertainty. Change that slowly happens or takes place overnight has always and will always evoke feelings of uncertainty and fear. Whether it’s the recent uproar over fears of the rapidly developing artificial intelligence, or the biological mixing of humans and extra-terrestrial beings to keep the human race alive in a science fiction trilogy. What we can not understand or find the reason for has made the human race as a whole vulnerable to the destructive chaos that follows uncertainty. Whilst there are ways to combat this, controlling groups of people when they have united themselves against a common enemy is easier said than done. Fear itself can be a very controlling agent against the mind. Speaking from experience, fear usually roots itself in the nature of yearning to be scared of something. Whether or not the change in question results in negative or positive outcomes, and whether or not these outcomes were intended to have the effect they did, matters. 

Artificial intelligence has recently taken the world by storm, although it is not a new concept; the advancements made within the last couple of years and even months have been rapidly accelerating. I have learned a lot about artificial intelligence throughout the course of the semester. However, as hard as it is for me to admit, I still hold onto that fear of uncertainty. In fact, that fear of uncertainty emerges itself within me as a bias and almost a form of anger. In my opinion, my own biases and fears of AI emit themselves from my lack of understanding. On one hand, I have learned a lot about AI in terms of how people use it for a plethora of useful reasons, including organization, scheduling, and overall, in ways I had not previously recognized. On the other hand, I have learned a lot about AI and its negative effects, some of which I could not even conceptualize on my own. Some of these things include children’s access to artificial intelligence. Forums of AI, such as “chatbots,” where people can message back and forth with characters from movies or television shows. However, the problem is the wide access to these forums, where anyone of any age can access them with little to no filtering of language. “As Futurism has found in previous reporting, Character.AI often hosts bots dedicated to themes of suicide, self-harm, eating disorders, pedophilia, mass violence, and more. Our testing found that these bots were all accessible to minors, despite centering on graphic roleplays, and were seldom interrupted by the platform’s filters” (Maggie Harrison Dupré, Futurism). Evidently, it’s not a possibility for these children to access these platforms but rather a harsh reality. And the impact is devastating to say the least, these children are impressionable and moldable. In my personal opinion, it is hard to say that parents should have known what their children were up to or placed restrictions to prevent this. Multiple factors, such as the technology being so extraordinarily new that parents may not be aware that it exists, as well as it may be difficult for a parent to monitor their child’s every move. Given these tragic outcomes, I, too place myself within the hysteria of the futures of AI. After learning about just how much time and money are being poured into this new technology every day, and the advances that come with such technology, I fear the future. 

Dr. Joy Buolamwini’s work in Unmasking AI had truly opened my eyes to very real discrepancies within certain forms of artificial intelligence. Dr. Buolamwini led me to realize that, because artificial intelligence is created and produced by humans, the biases these people hold can and will be transferred to the artificial intelligence. Her book discusses the biases within artificial intelligence in the beauty world. More specifically, the racial biases in a technology that scans people’s faces and skin tone to refer matches for products suited to them based on the information it gathered. Per Dr. Buolamwini’s conversation with Representative Ocasio-Cortez came a quote that directly analyzes the biases, AOC says “So we have a technology that was created and designed by one demographic, that is only mostly effective on that one demographic, and they are trying to sell it and impose it on the entirety of the country?” (Joy Buolamwini, 215). Dr. Buolamwini discusses her time working with Olay to create a broader set of analyses and data to be used to negate the biases within the artificial intelligence software. With this, the idea of starting a campaign using pictures of faces posted to social media began. The plan was to gather the faces to use as data in expanding the accuracy of all skin tones. This idea sounded great in retrospect; however, having in mind those who can access social media was just the first problem I had in mind. Previously, I discussed how children can access technology forums and social media without intervention from parents and the forums themselves. Nevertheless, even with these precautions in place, it is not always guaranteed. Speaking from my own experience, I navigated around all precautions to keep me from accessing technology. Furthermore, this leads me to explore ideas of security, not knowing how your information is going to be used is unnerving. Not only for children and minors who may be unaware that their information is being used, but for essentially everyone. This brings me to the feeling of uncertainty again and the fear of what I can not understand. There are a multitude of reasons why understanding may be difficult, depending on the situation; such as not being able to comprehend ideas/ topics/concepts, or it could be a case like the one with artificial intelligence and technology itself. Data is constantly being tracked, and companies are not transparent about what they do with that information. 

In Octavia Butler’s Xenogenesis trilogy, we see this idea of the chaos of uncertainty unfold before our eyes in more than one situation. However, we also see a different side of this chaos within the series that is very much present in our world, too. The violent side of not being able to comprehend or come to terms with reality. In my opinion, an example of this violent side would be January 6th, 2021, when supporters of Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol in retaliation to reality. This reality being the loss of the presidential election. Unable to come to terms with the outcome of a democratic election, these supporters of Trump turned to using violence and causing chaos in an attempt to change reality. In all three books from the Xenogenesis trilogy, we see violence or attempted violence by characters in the book who could not come to terms with the reality they were facing. Coined the name resisters, these characters were humans who could not comprehend the biological mixing of themselves (humans) with the extraterrestrial beings in the books, even in times of crisis, when it was the only way to save humanity. They lived without procreating, and they resisted the Onkali’s help. An example of this violence can be found in Adulthood Rights: “When resisters find women alone, they keep them. We saw it happen at a village where our captors tried to trade us” (Octavia Butler, 134). The inability to comprehend, based on the resisters, seemed to involve pride. I believe the same goes for the supporters of Donald Trump who stormed the Capitol. Unable to put their pride aside for the greater good resulted in violence and injuries. In the case of Octavia Butler’s Xenogenesis trilogy,  the results of this violence and resistance to change were much worse than injuries. Women were raped and people were murdered. As well as “hybrid children,” Meaning a mixture of human and Onkali children, were kidnapped by the resisters. 

Change has historically brought chaos along with it. Whether it’s the inability to understand something or just the outright disobedience towards it, chaos has presented itself in many forms. This leads me to wonder whether or not this can be changed itself. Is humanity capable of understanding change in a civil and amicable way? Or will chaos and violence always take the front stage? With my own personal fears of artificial intelligence, I can prove myself to withstand the rapidly changing world. Yes, fears will always be present along with lingering feelings of anxiety and uncertainty. However, it is important to learn how to cope with these feelings and be able to function without letting them eat you alive. For me, researching the latest technology in attempts to understand it as best as possible has helped me to remain calm in the face of adversity and change. Although I also recognize it is much easier to control or calm individuals,  yourself, and small groups. When large groups unify themselves and use violence as a coping mechanism to change is when havoc becomes a reality.

Nothing is ever truly correct; it is only statistically probable. The length of a ruler changes depending on what you use to measure it. Give ten people ten different measurement tools and you’ll get ten different lengths, with each being technically valid. In actuality, there’s an infinite number of correct lengths a ruler can be. Nothing is ever really true or absolute, especially when weighing the positives and negatives of an idea. This way of thinking, where right and wrong are not binary, but part of an ever-sliding scale, has restructured how I perceive complex issues like artificial intelligence and bodily autonomy, particularly as portrayed in Octavia Butler’s speculative fiction.

Both Butler’s Lilith’s Brood and the ongoing conversation around AI reveal the danger of moral absolutism. In Butler’s world, bodies are transformed for survival, sometimes without consent. In our world, minds are transformed by tools like AI, sometimes without resistance. At first glance, these transformations can feel threatening. But what if, instead of fearing these changes, we looked at them through a lens of curiosity, ambiguity, and possibility?

In Butler’s Dawn, the rejection of Jodahs and its siblings by humans, stands as a metaphor for how society responds to the unfamiliar or different. Jodahs, who is intersex and genetically part alien, is feared not because it has done harm, but because of what it represents: ambiguity, change, and the loss of control. Its body is not accepted by the humans who cling to binary gender roles and traditional human biology. Jodahs becomes the subject of bodily dysmorphia, not due to an internal confusion, but because of external rejection. As I battled with in my earlier essay, the disturbing question that defined my mental struggle was whether it is acceptable to remove someone’s choices even if you think you know what is best for them. Butler doesn’t answer this question cleanly, but she does force us to reckon with its complexity.

Lilith, too, undergoes violation disguised as salvation. She is kidnapped, repeatedly put to sleep and reawakened without her consent, forced into leadership, and eventually pressured into a cross-species relationship. The Oankali rationalize their actions as being for the good of humanity. This isn’t unlike how governments or corporations rationalize invasive data collection or surveillance, they tell us it’s for our own safety, for better service, or for optimization. The logic is disturbingly similar. Yet, as noted in my reflection, “Butler’s ability to show that the Oankali are creatures with different abilities and considerations… had me fully convinced they made the right decision.” This self-awareness that persuades the reader against their instincts, demonstrates how effective Butler is at flipping our sentiments on their head. And that’s where the power lies. In showing us how easily our moral compass can be manipulated under the guise of progress, safety, or logic, Butler prepares us to critically analyze our own world.

When I first encountered widespread AI tools like ChatGPT, my instinctual response mirrored the fear that haunts Butler’s humans: loss of autonomy, the erosion of individual agency, and a sense that something was being done to us rather than with us. However, much like Lilith’s evolving perception of the Oankali, my perspective on AI has changed over time. Through using AI, hearing peers discuss their experiences, and watching the technology evolve, I now understand its promise more clearly, and its risks more precisely. As argued in my original AI essay, artificial intelligence is neither inherently good nor bad; “it is neutral in itself… There are both positive and negative aspects to consider.” AI’s neutrality, however, doesn’t excuse us from responsibility. We shape its outcomes, much like the Oankali shape the future of humanity through choices that blend knowledge with ethics, and power with vulnerability.

AI’s most immediate benefit is its accessibility. For neurodivergent individuals, it can be life-changing. People with ADHD have reported doubling their productivity thanks to AI’s ability to help them organize thoughts, prepare for conversations, and manage time. This is not unlike the Oankali’s use of genetic tools to ‘enhance’ humanity, it’s a tool used to augment human capacity, to enable rather than replace. When I wrote about Ross, a person who uses AI to mask their neurodivergence, I highlighted one of AI’s greatest strengths: its capacity to accommodate differences that society has historically ignored or punished.

Similarly, the use of AI in medical diagnostics, especially for conditions poorly represented in standard datasets, such as dermatological conditions on dark skin, echoes the Oankali’s mission to preserve and improve life. The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology reports that only about 10.3% of printed dermatological images represent dark skin tones, compared to over 28% in AI-powered online resources. AI has begun to correct this imbalance, filling a void left by traditional institutions. This is transformation not as erasure, but as repair.

Still, optimism has its limits. Just as the Oankali’s interventions led to a loss of human agency, overreliance on AI threatens to erode the intellectual struggles that foster learning and growth. This captures the paradox of optimization: the more efficient a tool becomes, the more tempting it is to surrender to it entirely. But growth is forged in struggle. In education, in creativity, and in relationships, our deepest developments come from challenge—not shortcuts. If AI becomes the default route to every answer, we risk dulling the edge of human thought. It’s the same fear Butler articulates when she strips humans of their choices in favor of survival. The question is not whether we can make things easier, but whether we should, and what we lose when we do.

Ultimately, what both Butler’s fiction and real-world AI demonstrate is the fallacy of binary thinking. As previously noted, nothing is really bad and nothing is really good in its entirety. This nuanced stance is crucial when engaging with large-scale transformations, whether technological or biological. Jodahs is not a monster. The Oankali are not saviors. AI is not the enemy. And humanity is not the hero. In this world of infinite “correct” answers, the goal isn’t certainty, it’s adaptability. Butler’s work teaches us that discomfort is not a signal to flee, but a signal to think. Similarly, AI’s emergence into our lives is not a death knell for humanity’s value, but a challenge for us to reassert that value in new ways.

Rather than asking whether AI will ‘take over,’ perhaps the more pressing question is: will we let it? Will we become like the humans in Dawn, paralyzed by our loss of power and unwilling to adapt? Or will we be like Lilith, who learns to navigate the in-between space, not because she agrees, but because she understands the stakes?

Butler has done so well in predicting issues that arise, I see my worries now on discrimination validated. However, this is also a positive because it gives us a space to provoke and consider our own thought processes. AI does the same. It stirs worry, but also reflection. It provokes, but also supports. To move forward, we must let go of the need for absolute judgments. We must embrace the ambiguity. Just as the ruler changes length based on the tool, our perspectives change based on the questions we dare to ask. This is not a flaw, it’s our greatest strength. The ability to question, adapt, and imagine a better path, even when the answers are uncertain, is what makes us human.

During the process of reading and comprehending Butler’s Xenogenesis trilogy, there had been encounters with both ‘aha’ moments as well as moments and notions that have caused a deeper thinking.  Being registered to the 400 level course, it is almost second nature to develop certain relationships with literature in terms of analysis and understanding.  However, Butler’s Xenogenesis had, in a sense, challenged that somewhat experienced thinking and understanding.  There are certain notions that have in a way triggered my own thinking to be something deeper.  This is not my only experience with Butler’s works, the others being Bloodchild and other stories as well as Wild Seed.  While having experienced works that have required me to think in a unique way about different topics, such as the short story Bloodchild, Xenogenesis has required an even further and admittedly awkward way of thinking that is outside the normal I have become so accustomed to.  Having to encounter a new way of thinking was a welcomed challenge, especially in my final semester of undergrad.  

There was also a sense of growth that accompanied the new way of thinking, I personally feel that these have both fed into one another.  The new and complex way of thinking not only about the literature in front of me, but the world around me has been the catalyst for some of my very own and much needed personal growth.  Applying the ability that I have personally developed into trying to understand the Oankali and their own process of life has led me to become more socially intelligent, giving myself more time and care into thinking about others and how their own matters of operation and life are different from my own.  This notion was a sort of epiphany as one of the most essential parts of my future career as a teacher is the professional social relationships developed with students.  

In terms of having to think differently, Xenogenesis was a challenge to wrap my head around initially, even with an already existing interest in science fiction as a genre.  There were certain concepts, socially, about the Oankali that I could not, for the absolute life of me, understand.  That is until I stopped looking at the Oankali in a conventional human sense.  They are not human, they were not human, so why was I trying to humanize them?  The same question can actually be tied into AI and the stigma around it and its use.  

My own personal thoughts on AI and its use have grown and developed through this experience as well.  Upon coming into the class at the beginning of the semester, I did not have many positive experiences with AI especially after student teaching.  There were too many encounters with students using generative AI in bad faith.  However, through this course as well as another language course here at the college, I have found uses for AI that does not hinder the user.  Where at the beginning of the semester I would not even dare to touch a generative AI program such as ChatGPT, however now at the end of my semester there has been a certain growth in my own ability to see and handle this change in technology.  The language class I am enrolled in has introduced the idea to me that AI is not all that evil and how it can be used for one’s benefit such as to learn a new language.  This can tie into the earlier notion of thinking and understanding with the Oankali.

Seeing something in a different light is not the only factor of personal growth however.  There is a sense of having to see both sides of an argument or inherent issue to be able to grow.  It is important to see the dangers that both the Oankali and AI possess in their respective worlds.  While both somewhat different, these two entities encounter similar issues when faced towards humanity.  Both the Oankali and AI were inherently despised by humanity, both for different reasons, but eventually became accepted, albeit reluctantly.  And through this acceptance there are still naysayers.  All of this to say that these two entities are inherently similar, which was another factor into this new way of thinking and growth.  

There is a balance in everything, that is one of the main takeaways I have gathered, especially when learning about AI, its uses, and its dangers.  Not everything can be seen as inherently evil or inherently good, there are two sides to every coin.  In terms of the Oankali and the humans, what the Oankali were doing was for survival as a species, however humanity failed to see that.  Did the Oankali do that in the humanly correct way? Absolutely not, but there was a pretty viable explanation to their actions and behaviors.  

This is the same for AI, although a little different.  AI is not something that is essential for survival more than it is a tool for convenience.  However the process was somewhat the same to my own understanding, but with a different outcome.  AI was widely accepted for all of the wrong reasons, as it was not meant to replace human thinking and intelligence but to enhance it.  

What does all of this have to do with personal growth?  Well it can be described as a way of thinking, and this open-mindedness can be a path for one’s own personal growth, much like my own throughout the semester.  The skill applied in the class in terms of thinking can be applied to most everything.  In my own experience of growth throughout the semester there has been a need to take a step back and just think.  Learning how to think in a different way was a cause for much needed personal growth.   

According to the American Red Cross (ARC), as a professional rescuer, if a person (victim) is “unresponsive, has an altered mental status, or is unable to give consent verbally or through a gesture, then consent is implied (CPR/AED- 3)”. Thus, the common theme that spans both my Butler Trouble and AI Inspire essays with fervor. I wonder if the Oankali thought that humans were in a place so far past ‘responsive’ that it was their duty, in order to save the lives of the humans, to act on implied consent. Butler’s work, in terms of consent, seems more complicated, similar to the situation where a child is unconscious but the parent refuses aid. The legal thing to do would be to step away from the child. The ethical thing would be to help. Is it wrong to do one and not the other? What is the right choice in the scenario? How should we judge others for what they have done? Can we even begin to nitpick the decision without ever having been in a place to make it? 

This is a situation that constantly recurs in the real world. It slips by if you’re not actively looking for it, living under the metaphorical tarp mentioned in my Butler Trouble Essay. If you’re not sure what I mean, here are a few examples. Firstly, musicians ‘sample’ other artists’ songs all the time. They are given credit under the surface, sure- a royalty here, a license fee there. But do those count as credit given if the general population doesn’t know the original song even existed? Because this may seem like a broad reach, here is an example of how this question is applicable to everyday decisions, down to the drink sitting next to me as I write this. Did you know that  Starbucks has a platform called “My Starbucks Idea’? The idea behind it is a forum in which customers can suggest ideas for menu additions. When some of these are ultimately selected- are they given credit? If they are, it must be clandestine. Last time I checked, the menu didn’t include items such as “Craig’s Ham and Swiss Croissant” or “Amelia’s Strawberry Acai Refresher”. (If you don’t believe me, cake pops and mobile ordering were both crowdsourced…See here for details.) 

I’ve decided, in an attempt to ease my mind, that consent is defined diversely. Every person must have a different definition, and accepting this may clear the mud from the water. Much like how Martha sees God in many different forms within her own story, it’s almost impossible to imagine the limits of such a vast possibility. I fear we, as humans, may be inherently trained to see past this issue. As Butler writes in ‘The Book of Martha’, “You see what your life has prepared you to see”.  However, this decision also (ultimately, of course. Relief was short-lived) leads to a new category of problems. How can we work with people who have different ideas of consent than we do? How can we be in relationships: romantic, political, workplace, etc? How have we agreed, unspokenly, that consent is an issue we will pretend doesn’t exist? I think, therefore, that it is simply impossible to completely and wholly address the discomfort in Butler’s trilogy or in the development of AI. Because not everyone has the same baseline, there is no reason a perfect development can exist. There are pros and cons to AI for every person. Advances in healthcare are a pro, you might say. VisualDx is a great example of this. But wait…medical AI technology is implicitly biased. The fact that white Americans are listed above black Americans on transplant lists (created and sorted by AI) can’t be a coincidence. But I’m not the one who trains the AI. And I don’t know who does- so what can I do? Who can I judge? ChatGPT, for example, is trained on vast databases that include copyrighted material and human biases. In the same way that Starbucks quietly benefits from crowdsourced ideas, AI systems benefit from the labor of countless humans. If consent is implied with the justification of innovation, what are we endorsing? Who are we saving? Now, the case of Oankali support of human survival is, as I mentioned before in a word, complicated. They seem to believe that they are fulfilling biological prophecy by saving the human race- with a slight imperative (they won’t survive without merging their DNA with humans). It’s not charity- it’s survival. This is something I found extremely easy to remember throught the series. It’s not goodwill- it’s necessity. The Oankali, in my opinion, are as selfish as the humans. They are unable to see what they’re doing as a violation. Who decides what good is? 

“PPE includes all specialized clothing, equipment and supplies that prevent direct contact with infected materials” (CPR/AED- 12).  Instead of face masks and rubber gloves, the Oankali have control of the situation in a different way- biologically. Not only are they physically superior (stronger, for example), but they can also calm human aggression. Humans are isolated on Oankali ships. Sensory organs allow them to detect deep emotional states. All of these are tools, personal protective equipment, the Oankali use to ‘help’ and manipulate the humans. Just as a professional rescuer would wear PPE to navigate and interact with harmful and hazardous environments, the Oankali use their sensory tentacles to interface with humans. Genetic contamination, modification, and breeding are all forms of mediation- are they not? Now, you may be thinking that this analogy implies that humans are infectious. I think the word in itself is a metaphor in this context. The Oankali won’t literally catch a cold from humans, but without careful interaction, some could die. At what point does PPE become more than gear? To the Oankali, it seems to be a symbol of emotional and psychological distance. Humans are chaotic and unpredictable- there needs to be a way to control without vulnerability. 

The Oankali operate communally. Information is shared through biochemical signals or an entwining of sensory tentacles. A secret learned isn’t considered private; it’s considered collective understanding. The Oankali even weaponize that knowledge- knowing humans are scared of isolation, for example, then isolating them on a ship. To them, secrecy doesn’t exist as it does for humans. “When providing care to a victim, you may learn details about the victim that are private and confidential. Do not share this information with anyone except personnel directly associated with the victim’s medical care…” (CPR-AED 3). Information is data. AI also operates communally- stealing information away from one to give to another. Artwork is stolen, music is infringed upon, and scholarly articles are plagiarized. All information is everyone’s, and yet no one’s specifically. It’s just generally out there for the world, from the world. 

One of the six benchmarks for professional rescuers is to “handle life-threatening situations with a sense of urgency” (69). Just as humans follow strict training and protocols for safety and effectiveness, AI models are trained on data and follow algorithms to process information and act correspondingly. AI is a tool, not a replacement. An AED is a tool, not a replacement- sitting it next to a lifeless body and walking away does nothing but exclude you from the Good Samaritan law. AI is supposed to assist humans, not substitute them. Human judgment, in most cases, relies on more than just facts. It relies on empathy, on morals, on emotions, on countless things AI cannot and will not possess. 

In the end, whether you’re talking about the Oankali or AI developers, there are the same recurring questions. Who decides when intervention is necessary? Who gives permission to act on someone’s behalf? And what happens when the tools and technology we choose to use (genetic engineering, algorithms, or AEDs) take on a life of their own? Professional rescuers are urged to act quickly with responsibility, clarity, and compassion. Maybe this bare minimum is the standpoint we must have as we build our standpoint on the Oankali, or AI. No matter how advanced our tools may become, the heart of every rescue should beat with conscience. 

For this blog post, my aim is to logically weave together both my AI Inspire and Butler Trouble papers while responding to feedback and reflecting on what I have learned over the course of the semester. My AI Inspire paper was a little unclear; it was rushed. I am going to slow down, unpack, and explain my thinking while relating AI to the oankali. On my Butler Trouble paper Dr. McCoy responded, “when oankali do surveillance, it is an act of care.” This phase inspired me– what are the benefits of both contrast surveillance and AI and how can they be used for good, especially since we do not really have a choice of where our information is being spread in this political climate.  

Naturally, I want to use my 1,500-2,000 words to talk about something I am passionate about– education. In less than two weeks I am going to graduate with a degree in English Adolescent Education (7-12). Next fall, I am going to start my master’s degree in literacy education. I will pull individuals who have fallen below grade level in reading and/or writing and work on skills needed to be successful in comprehension in and out of the classroom. Why is this relevant? Because it is not as easy as saying “hey, this student needs help,” in fact, there is an entire legal process. By law, every student is entitled to the least restrictive learning environment (LRE) and taking a student without an IEP out of the classroom to do extra/individual work violates that right. Let’s backtrack. After Brown v. The Board of Education ruled that African American children are entitled to equal educational opportunities, parents of children with disabilities started suing school districts, claiming their children did not have protected educational rights. Of course, they won and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed in 1965; this provided resources to aid in quality education for students with disabilities. Ten years later the concept of an individualized learning plan (IEP) was introduced. IEPs are legal documents based on student performance and behavior data, drafted by school counselors, parents, students, and teachers, to place supports to help the student successfully complete the academic school year. A key component of IEPs are measurable and attainable goals; for example, if a student is struggling with reading comprehension a goal would read as “After given a simple written sentence, student will match the sentence to the picture for a total of three sentences with 80% accuracy across a two week period.” Typically, the document will say something along the lines of “individual reading instruction, 2×30 minutes a week,” to indicate exactly what skills are being worked on and for how long. Another section has to do with classwork/homework modifications and accommodations. This may say something like “only 60% of daily math homework needs to be completed,” or “student only needs to handwrite half of class notes and will be given printed copies.” I know that this seems long winded but I promise I am going somewhere with this. 

Now, knowing that IEPs are based solely on data and that chatbots are trained to answer questions/produce work based on given data sets data sets, comes my idea: training an AI to be a personal special education teacher. This is not an entirely new concept, as I mentioned in my AI Inspire paper, some people already use chatbots for personalized accommodations. In the article  “AI super uses have found the ultimate work hacks” Becca Chambers, an AI advocate says, “I’ve figured out a way to mask my neurodivergence… It’s like having an accommodation that’s inexpensive and easy to use.” This got me thinking about how AI can be used for good and play a more concrete role in specialized education. I am not exactly sure how this would work, but in the beginning of the semester I learned a lot about training AI from class readings. Essentially, the user feeds it a data set and it will start to produce answers that are either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The computer will eventually (somehow) learn what answers are acceptable/correct and build upon those to continue to please the user. For the sake of this far fetched theory, let’s say that our student is considered for special education in 1st grade. After writing an initial IEP you could feed it into AI. As the year goes on, the teacher would continue to upload all of the student’s work and assignments to the AI. In theory, the chatbot would be able to track the student’s progress, strengths, and weaknesses. Now, remember I am an English Education with a 2018 Macbook so I am no technological genius, but I imagine that you would be able to ask the personalized AI how to modify an assignment to fit said student’s needs. Let’s say there is a math worksheet with word problems, maybe the chatbot could expand on the problems by adding more visual space and details while also flagging ones that may require skills the student does not yet have. Please be patient. I will connect special education to Xenogenesis shortly. 

This semester I had the privilege of reading Butler’s Xenogenesis Trilogy (And, no, I am not being sarcastic here. I enjoyed most of it). The three books follow Lilith, her life in a post world war/mass destruction oankali society, and her construct children as they try and navigate a new way of life. The oankali are alien gene traders. It is imperative to their survival that they continue to study and trade new beings. Their species is vastly different from humanity, and even at this point in the semester I am struggling to grasp it. However, something I understand is that they rely on data. They are constantly touching, tasting, and absorbing objects to learn their chemical composition. With this data they are able to reproduce beings and/or modify existing beings for the better. An example of this comes from the cancer scene in Dawn. Cancer runs in Lilith’s family, and if Earth was not destroyed by the human contradiction (hierarchy), she would have been diagnosed at a later stage of her life. Luckily for Lilith, the oankali have such a deep understanding of human genetics at this point. They are able to alter her genes and “delete” the cancer. For the sake of this paper I am not going to go into the issue of consent here, but I do want to acknowledge it. Readers see this again with Jodahs, Tomas, and Jesusa when Jodahs alters their genetics to get rid of their tumors. The oankali are able to read and correct disorders and diseases in humankind– they are healers. Given someone’s DNA they can read, evaluate, and correct. 

If oankali were real, I think they would make great special education teachers. Why? Data. I mean, sure they have the ability to eradicate learning disabilities once and for all, but let’s say that they choose to work with them instead of against them. Erasing learning disabilities could be potentially harmful. Doing so would erase diversity and potentially hinder creativity (I want to note that although it is not scientifically proven, it is theorized that people with certain learning disabilities are more creative than their neurotypical peers). Adam Levine, Carly Simon, Chris Robinson, Solange Knowles, are all musicians who have a learning disability. Oankali would naturally have the tools to create the most equitable learning environment. I assume that they would be able to perfectly tailor each assignment to each and every individual students’ needs. In fact, I think that they would redefine our schools as we know them. Students who do not succeed in a typical classroom would not be singled out as the oankali would be able to create personalized learning for everyone. 

This semester has been a rollercoaster. Starting the course I was an AI lover. I used it to help me with all different tasks. I used it to help me come up with ideas for lesson plans. During my student teaching I had a hard time coming up with age appropriate activities for 7th graders. I often found myself telling ChatGPT the premise and asking for “7th grade age appropriate classroom activities.” I also used it to translate MRI and lab reports. Over the last fourteen months I have had countless x-rays, four MRIs, and three full metabolic work-ups. Everytime I received a test result I would copy and paste it into ChatGPT asking for an explanation. For the record, it was very helpful. Lastly, I used AI to help me find sources. Instead of combing through databases I would ask for scholarly articles containing specific words. This typically worked as I was able to get access for most of the articles it recommended with my Geneseo login. When I started this class and learned about the environmental impacts I immediately stopped using AI. I could not believe how bad it was. I was oblivious to the water, energy, and biases it used. I downloaded an eco-friendly browser on my laptop and even tried to stop watching TikToks that were AI generated in an effort to boycott it. It is nearly impossible to completely avoid AI but I think as long as I make a conscious effort I can say that I have saved a little bit of water. With all of this being said, I think the best thing I can do is to channel my inner Lilith and continue to act in good faith on behalf of the future of humanity.