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.