This blog post delves into the boundaries between humans and machines and the criteria for “human-ness.”
Artificial intelligence, led by deep learning, is advancing day by day. Deep learning, which uses statistical techniques to derive answers, is far from the category of strong artificial intelligence, which is an AI with intelligence. However, devices using deep learning can sufficiently change humans. The phrase “change humans” in the previous sentence means to expand the limits of ordinary humans using tools that humans can use, equipment that can be equipped, and implantable devices. For example, there are simple calculators, computers, artificial organs, RFID chips, and chips implanted in the brain to help calculate information. Humans who use these tools become literally superhuman, beyond the human.
As superhumans appear, there is a debate about to what extent can a person be called human if he or she is replaced by a machine. This is not only about the development of science and technology, but also a philosophical and ethical issue. For example, where does human dignity and autonomy come from, and are these characteristics still valid for beings that have merged with machines? Also, how should we resolve the new class of inequality and the resulting social conflicts that arise with the emergence of superhumans? The fusion of machines and humans can be a new challenge that humanity will face, beyond a simple technological innovation.
To answer this question, we will compare cases ranging from the mild to the extreme to determine which cases are human and which are not. Ultimately, humans cannot be defined because the line between human and non-human cannot be drawn precisely, and if we cannot distinguish humans from non-humans, we will come to the conclusion that humans are humans.
First, let’s look at the case of a modern human who uses a computer and a smartphone without any equipment implanted in the body. There is an incomparable difference in the area of computational ability between a person who does not use electronic devices at all and a person who is adept at using various electronic devices. However, no one says that a person is not human just because he or she uses electronic devices. Even if an artificial intelligence machine that helps him or her make decisions makes decisions for all situations, he or she can still conclude that he or she is human because the person who ultimately makes the decisions is human, even if only formally.
Let’s take a look at the case where some parts of the body are replaced by machines. First, let’s imagine a person who has lost their arms and legs and uses artificial limbs, and a person who has suffered burns to their skin and uses artificial skin. There are people who use prosthetic legs and arms right now and are living as proud human beings. And almost everyone would say that they are not human. If they do not have prosthetic limbs, they cannot walk or pick up objects, but everything else is the same as that of other people. In particular, they make the same decisions and judgments as other people, so they cannot be said to be different. In other words, there is no reason to say that they are not human. To expand on this further, even if all their organs are artificial, they are human because they make the same decisions and judgments.
But what if the organs that have been replaced by machines go beyond simple assistance and exceed human capabilities? For example, imagine a situation where an artificial heart functions much more powerfully and efficiently than a natural heart, and an artificial arm works much more powerfully and precisely than human muscles. The discussion of how such augmentation of physical abilities will affect human identity becomes more complex. There is no doubt that these enhanced abilities will contribute to improving human life, but at the same time, they may blur the definition of what it means to be human.
So what happens when the brain is artificial? In the previous case, the reason why it is ultimately human is because the way it thinks and judges is the same. Therefore, if the brain is artificial, we should come to the conclusion that it is not human. In other words, the brain decides whether a person is human or not. Also, if all bodies are human, but the brain is an artificial brain made of CPU, it feels like a machine wearing the mask of a human. However, it cannot be decided by the presence or absence of the brain.
Let’s consider the following case. If a chip that improves brain function is implanted in a person, is that person a person? If a chip that adjusts input values to make a person hear a little better or a chip that adjusts visual data to make a person see a little better, is that person not a person? I think the answer is a person. Because even if that chip is removed, the person’s ability will only be reduced, and they will still be able to live. Then, let’s consider the case where part of the brain becomes cancerous or malfunctioning, and that part is removed and replaced with a machine. If this machine is removed, the person will not be able to continue living, so it cannot be said that they are not human.
As such, it is not a question that can be decided by the presence or absence of a brain and whether it is 0 or 1. The conclusion that it is a human being is also ambiguous if there is even a part of the brain. This is because it is ambiguous to define a human being as a human being if there is only one cell and the rest are all machines. If that is the case, it would be possible to claim that if you attach one human brain cell to an artificial intelligence, it would be a human being.
In the above case, if the non-brain parts of a human being are replaced by machines, the person is still human because they can think and make decisions normally. If the brain is replaced, the presence or absence of the brain alone cannot determine whether the person is human. In the end, it becomes impossible to define whether a person is human or not at a specific moment. If a person is simply born as a Homo sapiens, it can be concluded that they are human, but there is something more to think about.
If an android that is completely indistinguishable from a human lives in a society, that android can live just as well as any other human. In the end, we can come to the final conclusion that it is right to recognize a person as a human if the brain is indistinguishable from a CPU or a real brain. What is important here is that humanity needs to consider how to accept these changes and establish new social and ethical standards. In the coming era, the concept of “human” will no longer be a fixed concept, but will instead be a constantly changing definition. This will provide humanity with both new challenges and opportunities.
