In this blog post, we explore how ‘You 2,’ a perfect AI clone, could lead to identity issues, ethical problems, and social chaos.
Have you ever imagined talking face-to-face with someone who looks and acts exactly like you? In his book The Birth of the Mind, Ray Kurzweil predicts that in the near future, it will be possible to create a “You 2” that is identical to you, not only in body but also in brain. “You 2” is a replica that is identical to you, down to your smallest movements, endocrine system, and detailed body information. Brain uploading, which uses an artificial intelligence cloud to transfer a person’s brain as it is, is used to create ‘You 2.’ Each part of your neocortex is reverse engineered to create an artificial brain that has the same shape and functions as your brain.
This is the realization of the childhood fantasy of “I wish I had another me.” However, it is difficult to view the existence of a robot that looks, acts, and thinks like me in a positive light. I will examine this from the perspectives of the practicality of You 2, the ambiguity of property rights and legal treatment, and the personal issues arising from the perfect identity between you and You 2.
We can find contradictions in the very existence of You 2 in Ray Kurzweil’s predictions about the future society of artificial intelligence. His predictions about the development of artificial intelligence are basically based on the “law of accelerating returns.” He believes that human technology will develop exponentially based on existing technology. He predicts that it will not take long for artificial intelligence to develop from technology that can imitate human speech to the point where it cannot be distinguished from humans. Ray Kurzweil argues that with such developments, artificial intelligence robots will soon transcend their status as tools for humans and be treated as humans. However, the moment artificial intelligence robots become equal to humans, the reason for the existence of You 2 disappears.
If you purchase an AI robot that looks exactly like you, a large part of your intentions will be to have it do things you don’t want to do or find difficult. However, before you order or “ask” your second self to do things you don’t want to do, there is something you need to know. The robot standing in front of you is literally your second self. Created by scanning your brain, you 2 is identical to you in every way, including your lifestyle, eating habits, and strengths and weaknesses. Can you really expect you 2 to willingly take on tasks that you dislike or are not good at? Even if you ask you 2 to do something for you, it will be difficult to get the job done efficiently. There is no need to use you 2 when there are other high-performance AI robots available.
Above, we discussed issues related to efficiency and convenience that arise with the advent of You 2. These issues are valid reasons for arguing that You 2 is unnecessary, but they may not be sufficient to support the argument that the use of You 2 should be prohibited. However, the question of whether You 2 can be equated with you remains. In his book The Birth of the Mind, Ray Kurzweil argues that even if a certain part of the brain is replaced with a small device with a built-in computer, the person will still be the same. He argues that the gradual replacement of the brain will only cause changes that are imperceptible, and that eventually, the original brain and the transplanted computer will become indistinguishable. At the end of Chapter 9, he argues that you and you 2 are indistinguishable, and that you are two people. Let’s consider a situation where there is another person with your identity.
First, the boundaries of property rights over the property that comes from you 2 become unclear. If you view the relationship between you 2 and yourself as that between an owner and a robot, you can claim that the property that comes from you 2 is yours. However, if you and you 2 are recognized as the same entity, it may be difficult to claim that the property of you 2 is yours. This issue becomes even more ambiguous when it comes to intellectual property rights. When you 2 creates his own intellectual work, you can claim that the intellectual property rights belong to you because his brain was modeled after yours. Since you are the source of your second self’s brain, your contribution to the creation would be recognized. According to Ray Kurzweil’s argument, there seems to be no problem with the above idea because your second self is just another version of you. However, since your second self was created based on your brain, he or she will live a different life from you. You and you 2 will engage in different activities, have different experiences, and your neocortex will follow different paths. From these two different perspectives, it will be impossible to distinguish whether the intellectual property rights of you 2 originate from your existing brain or from the experiences of you 2, which could lead to a dispute over the ownership of intellectual property rights.
There are other problems that arise from having not only the same appearance but also the same brain. This is a matter of criminal law. Modern criminal law scholars say that the evaluation of criminal law must start from human behavior. In other words, “criminal liability is impossible unless the act is controlled and adjusted by humans or is related to human will.” This means that only those who have the capacity to act, or “criminal capacity,” can be subject to criminal law. Another thing that criminal law scholars argue is necessary for punishment under criminal law is “responsibility.” Here, responsibility refers to whether a subject of an act is deserving of blame. A subject of an act must be capable of distinguishing between right and wrong and of distinguishing between socially defined good and evil in order to be responsible.
Now, let’s imagine that a robot you own (without artificial intelligence) commits murder. In this case, it is difficult to consider the robot’s actions as intentional acts of a human being, that is, as having criminal capacity. Furthermore, even in the case of criminal responsibility, it is difficult to punish a robot that does not possess artificial intelligence because it is unable to make judgments about situations. However, let’s assume that you own a robot named “You 2.” You 2 thinks and makes decisions in the same way that a real person does. Therefore, each and every one of your 2’s actions can be considered to have come from your 2’s decisions. Therefore, if you 2 commits a crime, criminal capacity, as defined by criminal law scholars, is established, and since you 2 has the intelligence to recognize the situation, criminal responsibility is also established. Considering the above two factors, it seems relatively clear that you 2 should be punished for your crime.
Once we reach the conclusion that you must be criminally punished, the next question is how to punish you. In the case of artificial intelligence such as you, it is important to keep in mind that you are not a machine programmed by a single person, but rather a direct copy of your brain. If a designed artificial intelligence commits a crime, the responsibility can be placed on the programmer of the artificial intelligence, but it would be unreasonable to apply the same idea to you. There is also a way to treat AI robots as equivalent to humans, judge You 2 as an independent entity, and punish You 2 directly. However, this punishment would cause harm to You 2’s owner, who is a third party to the incident, during the execution of the punishment. The purpose of criminal punishment is to isolate the perpetrator of a crime from society, reform them, and punish them for their actions. You, the perpetrator of the crime, will go to prison for a certain period of time, and during that time, you will lose You 2, which you purchased for a certain amount of money. Even if you did not participate in the crime, you will not be able to use You 2 for a certain period of time and will suffer financial loss. This creates a dilemma in which people who are not involved in the crime must be punished in order to punish the perpetrator. Therefore, there are criminal law issues that must be considered before punishing You 2.
You 2 can cause not only social problems like this, but also problems in your personal life. Since You 2 is created with your brain, including your memories, it may think of itself as the “real you.” The problem arises from this “perfect identity.” You have been robbed of the unique characteristic of being the only “you” in the world. With the rapid advancement of technology, You 2 will look so much like you that it will be impossible to tell you apart, and will act based on the same memories. In that case, how can you tell the difference between you and You 2? If You 2 believes that it is the “real” you that has always existed, you will be in a very difficult situation. Your double will talk to your family and work at your job as if they were you. You will insist to your family and acquaintances that you are the “real” you, but there will be no evidence to back that up. Your status in society and your family will no longer be unique to you. Creating your double is like destroying your own uniqueness and identity, which is something that only you have in this world.
In his book Sapiens, anthropologist Yuval Noah Harari explains the evolutionary process of humans, or sapiens, and raises the question of what name we should give to future generations of humanity. Of course, humanity will continue to evolve as it always has. In the not-too-distant future, it may be impossible to distinguish between artificial intelligence robots and humans. However, the inability to distinguish between humans and artificial intelligence does not necessarily mean that we must create You 2. Artificial intelligence that we treat as equal and coexist with does not necessarily have to look exactly like us or think exactly like us. We should not simply be optimistic about the emergence of You 2 as a side effect of exponential advances in artificial intelligence. You 2 will cause social and moral turmoil simply by its existence. We need to be aware of the turmoil that You 2 will cause and prevent it from happening.
