Free Artificial Life Essay Example

As a mere definition artificial life is an interdisciplinary field of research combining  computer science and biology, but with applications in various fields such as economics or  archeology. Its objective is to create artificial systems inspired by living systems, either in the  form of computer programs or in the form of robots. 

An additional similar concept is biomimicry, which is also an interdisciplinary cooperation of  biology and technology or other fields of innovation with the aim of solving practical  problems through the functional analysis of biological systems, their abstraction into models  as well as transfer and application of these models to the solution. 

Nevertheless, what seems to be a substantive opportunity to improve life for mankind, can also  lead to the most conspicuous totalitarian dystopia in the history of humanity. Various examples can be found in literature, to support or slay artificial life and its interaction with human societies. That Isaac Asimov is himself bicentenary, like Andrew the  robot, hero of the short story which gives its title to this collection, is what the enormity of his  production might suggest.  

He defends himself in a poem, The Flower of Youth, where we also discover that Mr. Asimov  is an individual and not a trust. That he is as old as his arteries, and that in them the blood  circulates with as much fluidity as the electrical impulses in the circuits of his Multivac  computer. 

Isaac Asimov's robots evolve in a particular context: they are neither threatening nor  appreciated by the population. Completely subject to the three laws of robotics, they only help  humans, who for their part experience an irrational fear of these metal beings: the famous  Frankenstein complex, which wants the author of a creature to be afraid of its possible  rebellion. Isaac Asimov always builds his robot stories on cases, strange contexts to test his  laws of robotics. Here, it is a robot who wants to be recognized as human. They allow us to grasp the muted presence, in Asimov's work, of the themes of the new SF,  less unconditional of science. And despite everything, it seems to me that it illustrates a subtle  change in the author. But nuanced: we must not confuse the faithful public, and everyone  knows how conservative it is - in SF as elsewhere. Each generation of readers elevates the  authors and texts that correspond to their adolescence to a golden age, any abrupt variation  leads them to think that SF is not what it used to be. From my time... One can easily imagine  that Asimov's “robotic” short stories correspond well to the ideology of science and the layers  established by technology in Campbell's time. SF both translates and constitutes this ideology  into a myth of progress. In the landscape that has changed, won't these texts which basically  take up the same themes seem anachronistic? Like electoral promises sometime after the  elections, which make a curious sound, and which present themselves as hollow under the  luxuriance of images that amuse the eye. Asimov moves cautiously. We can no longer accept  speeches like this without a chuckle today "All the men and women of the Earth can do what  they please despite the fact that Multivac (the computer) which judges all human problems in  a perfect way, do not consider that the choice in question is contrary to human happiness”. 

In parallel, it is well known, machines scare us. You just must see these humanoid  robots, larger than life, that Japanese firms (always ahead of time) proudly exhibit in all the  technology fairs on the planet. We can reassure ourselves by repeating to ourselves that a lot 

of electronic connections and processors have only limited capacities, to see their  reconstructed faces imitating all human expressions is enough to send shivers down the spine.  But could they really 'think', these modern creatures? Could a machine have free will, judge,  analyze, even deceive, and lie? 

After all, early 21st century phones would be 'smart', as they are widely called. But let's stay  in the realm of science fiction for now, since that's what Ex Machina is all about. In a research  center literally lost in the middle of nowhere, the brilliant but strange Nathan Bateman (Oscar  Isaac), who would have coded his first programs at the age of thirteen, invites the young  Caleb Smith to participate in his research kept secret. His prototype, that of an artificial  intelligence (or A.I. in the original version) named Ava, whose performance and credibility he  wants to test. All directed by Briton Alex Garland. 

In the same perspective, Forster was indeed very critical of the ideology of Progress.  He questioned unlimited growth and the cult of money. He observed that the development of  science and technology undermined everything he held dear: art and in particular literature,  human ties, the countryside. Very sensitive to nature – pantheistic visions even emerge from  some of his works – he suffered deeply from the destruction of landscapes, the invasion of  automobiles, the proliferation of suburbs, pollution, and annihilation. non-human life forms.  Passages from his essays, articles and plays clearly show a "techno-critical" positioning. In 1909, Forster was already alerting his contemporaries to the risks of a technical society  pushed to the extreme: degradation of human relations, loss of physical faculties,  impoverishment of sensory experiences... So many alerts which today echo the observations  of early childhood professionals, teachers or doctors concerning the ravages of screens. Why  have the critical voices of technologies always been so little heard? 

The similarities between what Forster foresaw a century ago and the current ravages of  screens are indeed striking. I see a difference despite everything: at the beginning of the 20th  century, we rather imagine that the integral mechanization of existence would end up  "reducing the human being to something like the brain locked up in a jar", to quote George  Orwell, an author who rubbed shoulders with E. M. Forster. In The Machine Stops, the  characters whose entire subsistence is taken care of by the omnipotent machinery have a  purely cerebral existence, which they satisfy by numerous erudite "teleconferences". We can also recall Black Mirror, which is a series that shows the rather negative side of the  future and artificial life. It's nice on paper to be able to relive any moment of your life with a  remote control, it's great to be able to test video games in such augmented reality that it  merges with reality, yeah. But technology is not necessarily all good and the series breaks this  myth with almost all the endings falling into the bad ending. 

On the other hand, San Junipero, the 4th episode of the 3rd season brings hope. Hope for life  after death. Certainly, currently the problem is the same as for Kelly. Did all those people we  loved know a real life after death or nothingness? Why could we benefit from them while they  are gone? It is this kind of dilemma that personally would prevent me from making a choice.  But in any case, it really represents hope for people who have never been able to walk in their  life, for example. San Junipero allows them to move freely, dance and many other things and,  if the concept is feasible, to transfer it into our reality. 

Nevertheless, it is very hard to predict the impact of artificial life in the future. But the  accuracy of some dystopian novels leads to serious questioning: will we face a standardized  life, a dictated thought, a gently anchored democratic tyranny, the abandonment of the critical  spirit, the ascent of ideas, the cult of the abstract, a world withdrawn from nature, anchored in  the bowels of the earth?

Will robots and other forms of artificial intelligence invade our lives so much that we will feel  nostalgic of an era that predestined us to this digital catastrophe?