Author: Lainelle Brazee

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. 

by Lainelle Brazee

Would you choose to die of cancer knowingly and in full consciousness or would you choose to be healed, self-indebted for eternity at the cost of autonomy? How would you feel if this choice was made for you, without any input or consideration of your thoughts or feelings? In Dawn, Octavia Butler untucks just enough of the tarp so we can see what’s under it with a glance in its direction, the corner of plastic fluttering madly in the wind. The Oankali offer humanity a ‘choice’ to escape extinction: at the cost of self-determination. While picking away at human autonomy like the nail beds of an anxious teenager, genetic manipulation, hybridization, and sterilization are services insisted to be in humanity’s best interest.  

Something I indignantly discovered upon reading the novel was the tendency for the Oankali to alter humans without their full consent, or any consent at all! When Lilith awakens at the beginning of the novel, she finds an unexplained scar across her abdomen, which is evidence of an unknown procedure performed on her in her unconscious state. This immediate violation sets the tone for the Oankali’s approach to humanity: they act in what they believe is the human’s best interest with disregard for real choice. Their sterilization of all humans until they (the Oankali, not the human of course) decide otherwise underscores their control. Even as they value (repeatedly) to claim consent, they assume it rather than seek it. Perhaps they don’t know the difference, and as we talked about in class, mental blocks don’t apply to the Oankali. Just because, for example, Joseph clearly had apprehensions about sleeping with Nikanji, those weren’t enough of a reason to halt the process because his body wanted it. I think we as humans don’t just do things because our body wants/needs to, we think about things and potential consequences first. The Ooloi and the Oankali both seem to lack this ability, or they choose to ignore it. I’m not sure which. Even though the Onkali aren’t great at consent, they do help. Preventing genetic disorders and curing diseases is helpful, Lilith, for example, no longer has cancer. However, the underlying costs make their interventions feel disturbingly akin to colonialism- and slavery. 

The Oankali’s insistence that humans must be participants in their genetic hybridization process is even more terrifying. They view this as inevitable and necessary (it is important to note that without this process the Oankali will die), but in the process, they strip humanity of our own choice in shaping the future. This echoes the historical justifications (thanks Octavia) of colonial powers, who imposed their own definitions of progress and civilization upon those that were subjugated. Butler’s narrative forces us to question whether survival under such conditions is any different than enslavement. 

A small part of me is annoyed at Butler for untucking the tarp. I’d like to read without guilt, thank you very much (however, this doesn’t outweigh my fear of ignorance). But of course, she lays these traps knowing we’ll fall into them willfully, even eagerly. We were warned before we even opened the book by Dr. McCoy, and I have spent a fair amount of time wondering if it’s better or worse that we knew of these traps’ existence beforehand. We would have fallen into them either way, but if we know about them beforehand we can be more mindful of our thinking process and recognize the ruts our minds pull into, not because they’re correct, but because they’re convenient. Even though Butler passed almost twenty years ago, I feel as if her writing is so incredibly transcendent. She knows that although what’s under the tarp isn’t easy to see, it’s imperative that we see it rather than live our lives in blissful ignorance. She must have been so incredibly intelligent and observant (we can see that from the hysteria Parable of the Sower has caused thirty years after its publication) to be able to not only pinpoint problems but write them down, tactfully integrating them into stories as narrowly disguised traps for the observant reader to fall into. It’s also admirable that you could read her work while staying on the surface level. It’s definitely not recommended, but it’s entirely possible. 

Are humans really doomed to destroy ourselves? Butler (loudly) suggests that humanity’s combination of intelligence and hierarchical thinking makes us inherently self-destructive. This view presents a grim assessment of human nature. Butler seems to remove herself from the rest of us while implying that left to our own devices, humans will always fall into endless circles of war and destruction. The Oankali see themselves as ‘saving’ humanity from this fate, but the methods they choose to employ are arguably coercive. Are the Oankali truly serving humanity, or are they replacing one form of destruction with another? I have come back to this question again and again while reading the novel. I honestly don’t know if an answer exists. I don’t know if one is supposed to. Lilith also seems to struggle inherently with this question. She’s forced to accept the Oankali change to ensure humanity’s survival, as are the other humans who have been Awakened. The bleak perspective of the Oankali (of Butler in disguise?) suggests humans’ incapability to change without external forces. Free will and destiny come into play here, left blowing in the wind like the corner of the tarp for us as we read to ponder. 

It also hasn’t escaped me that as Lilith becomes more integrated with the Oankali, the more she adapts to them, the less human she feels. Butler’s painful nudging in our ribs leads us to notice the broader metaphor unsheathed as the tarp falls away; cultural assimilation and the fear of losing heritage under an overwhelming foreign influence sounds pretty similar to Lilith’s situation. The loss of human-ness can also be related to the way people are treated, a problem that has existed for as long as people have. I don’t think the Oankali caused this lessening self-identity as a human on purpose, or maliciously. Just their existence forces humanity into a sort of hybrid model, not alien but not wholly human. The loss of autonomy once again comes into play here not just externally but biologically, as humans become something fundamentally different (through unconsenting procedures consisting of forced genetic alterations). 

Butler forces us again and again to be uncomfortable, and for that solely I don’t think is reason enough to dispute her or feel tricked. By facing harsh realities through the fantasy world of the Oankali, we see that survival under oppression isn’t a victory. Just simply surviving is not a win. It’s just a different form of defeat. We, along with Lilith, are forced to look into what is left, the fragments of what it means to be human, questioning if survival without choice even counts as survival at all. With lots left to be desired and seen, Butler walks away with the corner of the plastic tarp fluttering madly in the wind, departing with the coveted key that unlocks the question of whether it’s better to look or to live in ignorance. 

by Lainelle Brazee

In my limited experience with AI, the phrase I’ve heard over and over is simply, it’s helpful. It’s productive, it’s time efficient, and in most cases, it’s free– free, of course, in terms of monetary condition, not the cost of personal data collected or stored. The people of the anonymous Padlet conducted by Dr.McCoy in class seem to agree. “I sometimes use AI to summarize really difficult and complex research papers or scholarly articles that are given to students in class. It really helps…” one user says. Another has something similar, “(Chat GPT) is a really helpful tool…it’s like a little online unpaid intern”. Here, I think, is a good spot to acknowledge that AI use can cause a world of hurt, whether it’s plagiarism, reliance, or simply giving false information. If you as the reader (and I as the author) can choose to explicitly focus on the positives just for the few moments it takes to read this paper, perhaps we can set aside the catchall phrase “AI is bad” and its entailment. 

AI’s functionality and practicality have everything to do with the atmosphere in which it is used, and the appropriateness of the aforementioned. For example, you wouldn’t necessarily think that AI has a use in the general workplace- but as I read there are several AI ‘super users’ who have trained the system to their benefit. Their use of AI is far different from, as Maggie mentioned in class on Friday, high school English students who delight in copy/pasting their essay prompts and the subsequent return into ChatGPT and the Google Doc containing ‘their’ essay. Kanika Khurana is a so-called super user who put time and effort into training her AI. “The 30-year-old former head of design at ProCreator, a design agency in India, uses it for research, to help write up meeting minutes from AI-generated transcripts, and to summarize her dictated thoughts after job-candidate interviews, then format them for human resources. Her team has also created custom bots that can help other (especially more junior) colleagues create content for clients using specific lingo and voice, catering to target audiences”, Danielle Abril notes in her article. If this same mindset were to be adopted across other disciplines, I could easily see how the indoctrination of AI in the workplace could be both constructive and common. 

There are a lot of (mostly) baseless claims living on the internet about AI and the positive benefits it’s having on our society. If you ignore a particular half of the pros/cons chart, it’s easy to get really excited! Firstly, we’ve talked in class about the use of AI in the medical world. If something like VisualDx could have a sibling specifically dedicated to cancer recognition, for example, accurately and consistently, that would be a huge deal in the medical community as well as for patients globally. Of course, we still might have to keep rulers hidden out of sight in order to ensure accuracy. Then, there’s the problem that our AI systems are implicitly biased- wonder how that happened. There are solutions, as Donna M. Christensen, Jim Manley, and Jason Resendez point out in their article. Simple measures such as a “domain-forward approach” which involves an incorporation of doctors and health care professionals into the algorithm are all it would take to create a more fair and accurate system. Examining and lessening implicit bias in the people who drain the AI model (duh) and recognition by the Federal Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission of the fact that AI algorithms and machines could have potential harms as well as clear benefits. I feel as though we could be on the verge of something amazing- but there are some fatal flaws that have to be fixed before the good can completely overshadow the bad. However, the nagging voice in the back of my head has been incessantly reminding me we can’t fix problems to improve the quality of AI overall if no problems arise- the benefit of the doubt should be given. It’s simply impossible to create something that firstly immediately is foolproof and secondly stands the test of time without requiring the usual small adjustments and upgrades. Sometimes, terrible things need to happen for us as ignorant humans to realize the problem in the first place. (I will acknowledge that as I write this, I’m running full speed away from Jiminy Cricket. So if there are typos it’s because it’s hard to run full speed and hold a laptop and type simultaneously.)  As the world mourns the loss of Sewell Setzer III, I’m sure some people are only now realizing just how dangerous AI could potentially be. He shouldn’t have died. But his death has not gone unnoticed, and it has brought an enormous spotlight on not only Noam Shazeer and Daniel de Freitas but on AI in general.

The fact that an inhuman model is putting white Americans over black Americans on a transplant list solely based on the fact that they’re white is asinine. Especially because something that’s supposed to be based on so many numbers and statistics that it should simply *know* that, for example (thanks Wikipedia), Hispanics alone accounted for 51.1% of the country’s total population growth between 2010-2020. The fact that a COMPUTER- a machine, something that does not have skin to color- takes that into consideration is a sad reflection of not only implicit bias in our country but also the person(s) who trained it. I’ll take the ruler cancer. However, as I mentioned earlier, the idea of AI being a successful tool in the cancer detection world is something to look forward to, and for now, we’ll allow it the benefit of the doubt.

The cord phone sexytime hysteria discussion made me internally cringe, wondering if we as a society are expecting too much of AI in its ‘infancy’ (as Mari coined). AI is a part of our future whether we like it or not, and it’s up to us to become as educated as we can about the pros and the cons. As with everything else, it needs two things to advance and better itself: trial and error, and time. Those won’t come without the latter- so all we can do in the meantime is revel in the positives and learn how to adjust the negatives. As with anything and (almost) anyone else, AI deserves the benefit of the doubt.