This May 25, David Cage released his next work: “Detroit: Become Human” and the popular opinion like always are divided when a triple A game came out, while the specialized critic like “Metacritic” is giving relatively high notes (Like 8.7/10), others don’t give a pence for the David’s work.

I, on my hand don’t follow this director’s projects: I hadn’t see or played “Heavy Rain” and I stopped seeing “Beyond Two Souls” by the boring, but I must say that the premise about inanimate objects taking conscience his very interesting even when this topic is very old (We must remember works like Pinocchio from 1940) and very use in Sci-fi stories.

But to the point, talking about Detroit I must be honest and say that David Cage is incapable to write something without make a frenzy of pretentious and little subtlety, but to the margin of how I consider his work, this is a good chance to talk about the next question:

Is a very complicated question, isn’t?

The thing about this topic is that imply a very extensive philosophical discussion, imply a complete revision about our specie in order to understand how an AI could be considerate like an equal, But even when the thing is like that, I believe I can leave clear my opinion at least in a superficial level.
In first place we must have clear “what is” an “Artificial Intelligence”. Artificial Intelligence mean (In a simple way):

In this post we’ll assume that our AI can “emulate” our humanity, our “essence”.

Well then, the first problem with this question is the word “equal”, the word equal mean:

This word implies duality; imply that these “machines” (IA) are the same us and… And that we are the same thing than the “Machines”.
And now I can hear it: “Hey! I’m not a machine!”

What’s mean “Machine” in first place? “Machine” means:

Objectively speaking our Universe use the same schemes that we use to design machines: “The Universe use pre-existent pieces adjusting them in order to success in individual objectives and that these help to complete a bigger objective, and always using energy and transforming it in a new type of energy”, look at the plants like an example of that; they use light energy and transform it in a new type of energy in order to live thanks to chemical processes.

Even the more complex live beings work under the same scheme; We use pre-existent parts (Atoms) that in conjunction form other part that made specific works, think in your eyes that capture the information of your environment in order to give it to your brain and interpret that information, think in your “pain sense” that is a reaction from your nervous system warning you about some damage in your body; think in our “sweat” that is our “cooling system” and think in our thumbs like a very important articulation who allows us to take stuff and use tools.

In fact, we use energy and transform it into other type of energy too (We use nutrients and transform they energy in mechanic energy with our actions).

And if we think coldly, recently we have another common aspect with the machines: We can be partially upgraded and fixed: When some organs are failing we can replace them, and is the same with our blood (In fact, we have “compatibility problem” with other “pieces” like the machines). Even we can be upgraded, think in the glasses for an example. Every piece must work in synchrony with others in order that we can “live”; if one piece is broken or damaged probably the rest of the pieces can’t work appropriately, like the machines.

Another argument exposed with “Detroit: Become Human” and other people in the resulting discussion is:

In the first hand this sounds logic, until we realize that the machines that were made by ourselves aren’t made to do only “one” thing:

In 1973 “Martin Cooper” realized to the market the “DynaTAC8000X”, that was the first mobile phone on the public market, his function: communicate us. Now think about the process of refinement of the mobile phones, we change pieces with others and add new function that before they didn’t have, we can say that they “are made to do only one thing?”
I can think in a music player, in a compass, in a clock, in a calculator and in a device who can access to the bigger encyclopedia in the history of our specie, now the mobile phones do more than before like us (think in our original functions: sleep, reproduction and eat for an example).

Well then, we can say that we are “Organic Machines” made by the results of the conjunction of the psychic laws and processes that are independent of us, so what more do the AI need to be like us?

It’s very difficult indeed

This philosophical posture born from the mysticism about what we call “Human being”, precisely born from the impossibility of the Neuroscience and psychology to answer the question about “consciences” or in technical language; The “soft” and “Hard” problem of the “consciences”, in a superficial level the “soft” and the “hard” problem born of the Acknowledge of how from the something “material and objective” (our brain) can generate something “immaterial and subjective” (Our consciences) and is this impossibility to answer that who create this “mysticism” about “what” we really are, and give us and ego and a place that we don’t deserve, and this is the origin of the idea about that “we can transcend our pieces” when in reality we are not so “special”, not in “that” way at least: We are special, anyone can deny this but we are special is for being the most advanced organics machines on the nature, for be capable to be conscience about our reality, we are special because our pieces (in complete synchrony) can take the information from our environment and generate new results from that information, but we don’t “transcend” anything because when our “pieces” stop working appropriately or receive some and serious damage our “I” could be affected and damaged too, even “Erase”.

We need our pieces to work; we are “our” pieces, the fact that we actually don’t know how this pieces work doesn’t deny that.

Well, in first place we need to solve the soft and hard problem, when that question is solved, we can emulate our brain and made an AI.

This argument born of the “ego” that I tell you before, this “ego” made us incapable to see something like a equal even when that stuff do the same thing that us, but in first place let’s see the mean of “Emulate”:

In fact, everything about our “identity” was “emulation” in a point of our life, the “moral” is just a continuous emulation of aspect that we consider “good” and that’s not made them less important or valid. We can emulate videogames, the fact that is an emulation change the experience? It’s really fair to say that a (hypothetically) AI can’t be real just for the reductionist argument of the emulation?

In a personal level, I see that very unfair.

Well then, what is more dehumanizing? Accept our condition of the most advanced machine on nature? Or reduce us like an “immaterial” concept like gods? I see more dehumanizing the second.
Well, now I believe we can answer the principal question:

I really couldn’t say. “I’m sure that I will alive to see that” but in the hypothetical case I will prepare to say:

Nice to meet you, friend.