Black Mirror: Are Digital Copies People?
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 02. 2018
- Are Black Mirror's digital copies -- or "cookies" -- really people who deserve the same rights as we do? Check out the wonderful Rick and Morty merch at www.SchwiftRickGear.com / Get 25% Off with Code SCRPRM1
Support ScreenPrism on Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=7792695
Sign up for exclusive updates: bit.ly/2oVVB1Q
If you like this video, subscribe to our CZcams channel for more.
Like ScreenPrism on Facebook: / screenprism
Follow ScreenPrism on Twitter: / screenprism
Visit ScreenPrism.com: screenprism.com/ - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Check out the wonderful Rick and Morty merch at www.SchwiftRickGear.com and get 25% off with code SCRPRM1
Support ScreenPrism on Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=7792695
Subscribe to keep up with our latest videos, and let us know what you want to see next!
ScreenPrism could there be a book prisim in the future?
A small request! Can you make a video comparing Black Mirror and West world? I think this would be really interesting. 😃
ScreenPrism SchwiftRickGear rips off artists, don’t support them
ScreenPrism Of course a video on philosophy has to get tied to regulation of companies in some passive and unjustified critique on capitalism, I was enjoying this shit as well and as always with ScreenPrism their political agenda got lodged in there.
The Lich King MK - relax dude lmao
They need to do a Black Mirror episode about an evil Alexa that oppresses everyone at home.
This was a disney movie, Smart House.
Sabrina Spencer Thx. Haven't seen it yet, but I'll check it out today or tomorrow.
"Alexa, play my jam."
"Don't tell me what to do, fucktard! Besides, I hate that damn song."
Simpsons did it. Actually the episode was a cross between Smart House and 2001.
i was going to say that
When season 4 premiered, I kept going on the Reddit thread about each episode after I watched it, and was deeply disturbed at the number of people who said things like “well Daly was only torturing copies of people, they aren’t real.” And at how many upvotes comments like that had.
It’s unbelievable to me that someone can watch an episode like USS Callister and walk away thinking that Daly was just playing with toys. That it was disturbing that he *wanted* to torture those toys, but the torture itself wasn’t all that disturbing because they’re just toys. That someone can’t stretch their perception of what a person is outside of their current worldview. And then you apply that mentality to Black Museum and suddenly the Black Mirror universe doesn’t seem all that farfetched.
Marcy J do you think torturing your sims is bad? These copies don’t actually feel anything but just look like they are, same as sims.
@@wolfgod1011 Or different than going on a killing spree in GTA. The show gave no indication of the fact that he had the potential to harm real people. There is such a thing as people doing fucked up awful shit in video games and still in real life not actually wanting to bring those desires to life but rather use then as a coping mechanism or way to vent. While is definitely fucked up. It's game with code desgined to act like people. Better it be in the game than in real life.
and yet the show very clearly indicated that the copies were sentient, with the ability to feel and think and reason, just like a person? The capability to go into such a realistic simulation of reality, and torture things that look and act exactly like people because, as the show clearly means for us to realise, they basically are people, speaks of truly broken soul. Torturing sims? Normal, fine, I can't condemn that.
Torturing a real sized, completely life-like copy of someone you know, who acts and feels and thinks exactly like that person? If you don't think that's fucked up, I don't even know what to say.
These copies are real. It's simple as that.
Edward Agboraw or they were programmed to show mimic emotions. Until we can explain human conscience we can’t explain digital consciences. The only agenda this show is trying to convey is humanity is inherently evil, and technology can be used for good. When it’s the complete opposite.
No. If we can't explain human consciousness, then we can't explain why digital consciousness, wouldn't be conscious. If we can't say why a meat brain is capable of true feeling, we can't explain why an exact digital copy wouldn't also be capable of doing so. If we were able of pointing to somewhere in the human brain an going "look, here is where consciousness is", and then pointing at the digital copy and going "look, we removed that place /process, so this mind isn't actually conscious", then your argument would have merit, but as it is you're actually arguing my point better than you are arguing yours. If we can't explain why a human mind is conscious, then we have no way of stating that an exact simulation of human mind wouldn't be conscious.
We would be equally ignorant in both areas, and seeing as how we accept that humans are conscious, denying that quality from beings that act like humans in every way would be cruel. The show is trying to push the idea that we haven't lost our ability to dehumanize clearly sapient beings just because we outlawed slavery and haven't had a holocaust in a while. The cookies are clearly conscious. I don't know how you can't see that. The ending of San Juneripo is about two cookies finding love in an endless simulated afterlife. White Christmas and Black Museum clearly shows cookies being tortured as bad and inherently cruel. Hang the DJ is, again, about two cookies falling in love, and their emotion and experiences are clearly shown to be genuine.
Even if you disagree with the science, you have to admit that, as far as the show is concerned, cookies are people. Especially given how many of them are literally the main characters of various episodes.
Even if they aren’t “human”, it only makes sense that (if you think about “human rights” as a subjective human construct) that technically they should be afforded the same treatment, simply because a conscious being can suffer. If it can suffer, and it can know it is suffering, and it speaks a human language, that should be enough to qualify the “cookies” human rights. Especially in the case of the consciousness not being a simple copy, but the only copy of a human mind.
If those were the only requirement then animals right, at least intelligent animal rights would be granted and they wouldn't be killed or tortured for consumption either. If having consciousness is your only requirement, then people in vegetative state are essentially objects, being in coma is dying, sleep is suicide because consciousness itself is an arbitrary concept. There are some studies that suggest that plants may feel pain and want to avoid it. Are they conscious then? Are they human? Why not?
Candy Von Bitter there’s a difference between knowing what suffering is, and understanding suffering. A plant may know pain, but as far as we can tell they don’t have any capacity to understand in an abstract way, the world around them. They react to external stimuli, but will never take preemptive action to minimize their suffering. However, the absence of consciousness doesn’t mean an organism can’t meet the basic criteria for being alive. After all, atoms aren’t “alive” yet they react to Universe laws that then form life. In a sense, all life came from death, and all death nurtures new life. And yes, it should be that animals aren’t used for food if you think in a metaphysical sense, but the reality of our animal condition means we must consume. And until we can rely solely on synthetic meat or plants, we will have to eat animals.
Candy, you're mixing up the various definitions of the word "conscious". The kind of consciousness this is about doesn't go away when you're sleeping.
You are both still not adressing people on vegatative states or what even is the definition of consciousness you are using or how are you messuring that suffering at all. In a human it's not just when someone is crying or screaming that we know they are pain, there is a whole bunch of biological reactions happening to indicate as such. How do you measure that for something that is a computer program? How do you relate that emotional digital pain with human pain?
Animal will do what they can to avoid suffering, even beg (dogs could possibly lick the hand of the one who abuses them to try to convince them of leave them alone), cry and try to escape. Have you ever seen a cow about to be killed right after another one was in front of them? They do not like that. A escorpion will prefer pick itself and die if he gets cornered because it prefer to die before being killed. And I am sure you can find more examples of animals being self-aware or conscious in way similar to humans.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree that cookies that are the only literal copy of a human mind that doesn't already exist may as well be an actual soul and one that should be protected as any other human, even if not considered a human itself (hell, I would support create an entire new category for them because we are talking about entire new beings). I am just debating your logic about it because your idea of what a human is inevitable excludes other people of the category of human and put in it other animals that aren't human, so is inherently flawed.
As to my own logic, though... If is still alive and belong on the human especies, regardless of it's intelligence, capacities or awareness, that is a human. Just like a monkey is just a monkey if born of two monkeys, a human is just a human if born from two humans. A corpse is a dead human because once was human. That is all.
But how do you know the beings are legitimately being tortured or simply following the programing scripts on what "torture" is? How do we know they "feel" it in the sense I do? Look at the episode where they can talk to the AI in place of a lost loved one. They follow programming but feel nothing at all. How is it really any different with a game? Are you a sociopath for participating in a cutscene in a video game where you can torture someone? People say it's wrong because of a severe lack of knowledge of how video games work which with this episode you have to REALLY suspend your disbelief compared to other episodes that seem fairly sensible.
It's not all that different from the Christmas episode.
OMG the idea about heaven and hell created by humanity is terrifying!! :'(
Fitting, then, that in San Junipero, they use the song "Heaven is a Place on Earth."
But it's also the truth. It's always been the truth.
I've been thinking this will be our destiny for 25 years and every year we get closer to making it real.
its not an idea we literally created religion, we created heaven and hell to keep people in line humans wrote the bible and every other religious book. Its so fucked up if you think about how much suffering and pain religion has done to innocent people until we burn the vatican and every religious temple we will never move forward as a species religion will forever hold us back from growing.
Are we sure the one creating this are human?
The digital copying of the human brain/consciousness is my number 1 greatest fear for mankind. It opens up the potential for so much horror. You could create a digital 'hell' that simulates eternal torture. I've been having awful nightmares about it.
Fuck these mothafuckas
Yeah, those endings to Callister and Museum left me cold. It's like a secular Hell. Although the "Heaven" of San Junipero didn't leave me warm and fuzzy either.
H.D Beird san junipero struck me as boring, I know it must’ve been an early version but really there were only two places to socialise a decent bar and when that fails a bleak sex club, both of which made me depressed. Yeah it did not seem like a fun after world..
@@RK-ep8qy good music tho
How can we be certain that *we* aren't the cookies. Dun dun duuunnnn.
agatha fry Fuck you, fuck you! Don't say that!
We can't. In fact a popular physical theory holds that our universe is a simulation
We can't. It's a hypothesis that can't be proven or disproven, so if you subscribe to the idea of Newton's flaming laser sword it's not really worth debating since in the end neither side will be able to prove anything. However, it's an idea that has been around for a long time, its basis in the idea that reality is an illusion can be tracked back to at least the Zhuangzi written from 476-221 BC.
Not possible. You age over time. Cookies never show any signs of aging.
@@kenudice9841 as far as we can assume, our memories might be false, and could have been implanted, and we were born a mere 5 minutes ago. Or maybe our simulation does simulate aging too
I think the most terrifying aspect of cookies is their endless nature.
On behalf of my future - digital self, Thank you Charlie for being the first voice in support of digital personhood
This is by far the best 'Black Mirror' episode you guys have done. Excellent!
Great job - makes me wanna go back and rewatch some earlier episodes of Black Mirror!
So I think the core of the problem is that coming to a firm conclusion on this issue requires *technical details* that the show does not and cannot provide. I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that we can draw a conclusive answer from the show (at least in the affirmative. If your definition of personhood involves something spiritual like a soul, then well that's a different issue).
When we make a little Sims 2 family, they aren't "people", they're simple objects in a game that follow limited input. And if we could *perfectly* transfer our consciousness *exactly* into a clone of our body, so perfectly that no test can ever tell the difference, would anyone deny the personhood of the resulting object? By our naive definition of the construction (i.e., this couldn't actually happen), we're the exact same person as before.
The crux of the issue is that the Cookies presented in Black Mirror are somewhere in between these two extremes. And the Cookies themselves span wide spectrum of construction. So you simply cannot provide a firm answer for "Is this Cookie a person?", from what is presented on the show. We don't actually know the technical details of how these are constructed, what they can do, and what their limitations are. In most cases, they are *not* perfect copies, but they are "pretty damn good", which is what makes it interesting.
But the core of the issue will always be "How perfect *are* these copies?". Black Mirror makes one crucial choice in each case. No matter the context, they are portrayed by human actors, who obviously give fully human performances. This means that from the audience perspective, we are immediately forced to credit them with near perfect representation of human emotion. And this is sensible, because while we don't know where this technology will take us, I am confident that we will get to the point where simulations so realistic that they can imitate an actor with ease. This also means that the way humans and simulations are presented on the show in the same way, just actors on our screen. We *have* to root for the crew over the asshole in USS Callister, because on the TV screen, they are presented as equally human as Captain Daly.
But the show does *not* claim that these are *perfect* copies. Recall in Hang the DJ, we are given hints that these simulations are... not quite complete. The protagonists don't live full lives, really. The man goes to play squash, and just robotically hits the ball against the wall. When she skips a stone, it always lands the *exact* same number of times. We are given constant hints that while they are presented as humans, they have not simulated a perfect copy of our world, but we can't know how imperfect the copy really is. Does the program actually "simulate" all the time that we don't see? Or does it just "skip ahead" to the next time they meet, making the simulations uncurious about what goes on the rest of the time? (Recall, they only remember at the end that they have no recollection of what their lives were before adulthood...). The Cookies perfectly simulate human emotions (I mean, these are portrayed by actors), but do we know that they would actually be able to do so for any input? What if all these simulations know how to do is simulate going on a date? Does that count as human? Usually, tests of humanity involve being able to react to any input like a human would, so what about if a simulation can react to *some* input perfectly, but can't process everything?
People want there to be simple morals, but writers are under no such obligation (in fact, few adult stories have them). Instead writers simply provide an interesting framing of the question. Does it matter how simple the intended task of the intended cookie? (White Christmas, Hang the DJ). Does it matter that both living humans, and copies of human consciousness, can experience the same world? (San Junipero). Do we feel differently about the issue depending on how they can interact with the outside world? (Recall the line in Black Museum about how it was inhumane to not give a Cookie "at least five" possible output commands, as if that arbitrary number makes a difference). If we press "Copy + Paste" 1000 times on a cookie in pain, is that the same as causing pain to 1000 cookies, or even a 1000 people? (Black Museum). If creating cookies in pain is evil, is copy pasting 1000 cookies in ecstasy a morally pure act, as we're introducing joy to the world? Again, to reiterate my core point, *we don't know* the technical details of these cookies. Is that keychain just a really good simulation of a dude screaming? Or is it a perfect and exact copy of a consciousness, induced to feel pain?
TLDR: I think anyone who claims to have a definitive answer somewhat misses the point. At its core, the final "answer" to that question is inherently technical, not solely one of morality and ethics. And the show doesn't present us with *any* of the technical details needed to answer it. What the show does do is pose the same question in a variety of interesting ways. It's a *start* to the discussion of where we draw the line. It frames the issue, it does not provide an answer.
YES to all of that. And props for writing the longest comment I have probably ever read on youtube :D
I disagree with how you frame the problem.
First of all, I think Black Mirror is a good show but it gets way ahead of itself with the possibilities of tech relating to human conscientiousness. In a way, you may be onto something here, regarding the "authenticity" of digital copies. Is a conscientiousness without a body even possible? If it is, is it fully human? If it is, how do you "copy" conscientiousness? Is it the memories? Is it a particular interconnection of neurons? I mean... erm... it's a bit too much to even ponder about.
The assumption that conscientiousness will, someday, be possible to upload or copy replies heavily on it the concept that conscientiousness is akin to a "digital process" where memories and personality traits are "files", thoughts are "transfers" and the body "sensors". This computational theory of mind or "the brain is just a complex computer" idea have been so heavily used in popular culture, that we are starting to take it for granted. Not only that these may be entirely false, as there is no substantial evidence to support them, conscientiousness may have to do with much more of us than just the brain or even the nervous system.
But even if the tech presented would be possible, again, is conscientiousness without a body human? The same? If it isn't should it even be allowed? If it is, again, should it be allowed? I think the ethical discussion would start much earlier than the show suggests.
Not allowing making digital copies of your actual SELF would have lots of arguments. I mean, think of the iCould hacks, torrenting and all the other security problems on the internet and in the digital world. Imagine if people could copy/paste you without your consent. The "being" of celebrities could be illegally downloaded. Add companies would know what you want better than even you did.
About the suffering of one copy of a person compared to the suffering of 1000 copies of the same person... Well, those 1000 exact copies of that exact person, given freedom, would, we could assume, over time, become 1000 different individuals, even if just slightly different. So, yes, that would e like torturing 1000 people :D
Also, chickens are not individuals... yet:
I hope you agree that torturing 1 chicken is horrible, but somehow less horrible than torturing 1000. That is also a good argument for the case that digital copies of one's self, are somehow "sub-human". As long as each individual entity is susceptible to suffering and it is capable of experiencing that suffering, making them undergo suffering is unethical. SIMS cannot suffer. SIMS are avatars which are programmed to display as if they were suffering under certain circumstances.
This brings me back, kinda, to my original point. Is this even possible? Can computers, or anything on computers actually suffer or be happy or whatever? Yes, we can program an AI to tell us they are sad if we ell them something hurtful. That doesn't mean that the AI is actually sad. It means it has some code that tells it to tell us it is sad.
The entire threat that a super AI is supposed to pose on humanity is that of utilitarian calculus void of any morality or emotion. So programming that can calculate and solve problems without a concept of self. For is something has a concept of self, it should also have some form of empathy for other selves.
This is the paradox of Black Mirror. It does whatever it wants with still mystified versions of the human conscientiousness, but then, in Metalhead, emotionless killer robots execute people in their sleep because all they do is follow their programming.
I uh, I like the show too.
You've over complicated it in my opinion. It depends on it's purpose. In reality fringe activities such as torture would likely be considered illegal. Look at the comments. Meanwhile an AI whose soul purpose is to perform a limited set of mundane task will not be given full awareness. Why make a hammer that can feel boredom let alone be aware all the time? Why make a sex doll that can feel disgust? If we come so far as emulating an entire consciousness emulating these emotions in a none aware being would be childs play. Further emulating a whole person would be much more resource intensive. It's like building an entirely new car just to get a new fuel filter. It makes little sense and I can't see any engineer concieving of such a thing.
These things will likely never be an issue, but it's fun to imagine.
_But the core of the issue will always be "How perfect are these copies?"_
No it’s not.
Who _cares_ if they are perfect copies?! In fact they’re not, bcs the moment they are created their experience and thoughts branch off completely. The *key issue* is: Do they have that first-person perspective, _ie._ (self)awareness? If they do, it is completely irrelevant, if it is a ‘perfect clone’ of some person or not, when it comes to the *ethical question* of how they should be treated.
We should also distinguish between copying and transferring.
Even if the digital copies were aware, the implication seems to be that the original consciousness dies. So it's not our consciousness that will live "forever". It's the copy's consciousness which was suddenly created with all of our memories and personality.
I have always thought that uploading your consciousness into a machine to live in eternal happiness was a terrible decision (San Junipero). What if in centuries political change turns all stored consciousness into slaves or a EMP terrorist attack turns the program into a living hell. Cyber hackers stealing souls from computers to hold them for ransom so that 10 generations of a family have to be bargained for by some poor relative. No Thanks!
Alexander Cummins something is more than nothing.
Hi, even if some day becomes possible to create or upload consciousness to an artificial object, there is no such thing as eternal life or hell, you name. Because there are unavoidable physical processes like diffusion, that means every system is doomed to decay, once structure is lost, that something no longer is. Current silicon devices have a relative short life span of a few decades, a century at best, and the smaller the structures become, more prone to such physical phenomena. Only if there is an persistent effort to preserve the system consciousness will survive for longer, but I'll not bet that someone or something will bother by then.
Maybe the closest to thing to eternal hell is exposed on White Christmas, where the experience of time can be tuned. Then arises the question: Can simulated consciousness be broken at some point by the march of time? if not, is a truly unapproachable punishment that no one deserves.
I even cannot commit to a retirement plan thinking if the bank bankrupts all the monthly fee I've paid will be for nothing. I don't trust any institution with my money let alone with my consciousness:) That's a no from me too.
Worse - what happens when even perfect simulations aren't actually conscious at all? You literally just committed suicide when you uploaded & a video game character that mimicked your actions is all that's left. The whole thing is a terrible idea unless the whole problem of consciousness is solved.
@@vanguard5206 Exactly! *You* wouldn't be having sex on the beach in San Juniper, a copy of you would! It's pointless.
Why didn't they combine "Be right back" robots and the cookies, wouldn't that technically create immortality?
Be right back is before the experimentation of cookies. But yes...if they do that. It's pretty much Altered Carbon, Bladerunner, CyberPunk 2077, Ghost in Shell world
immortality is torture
Hmm no
The reason this channel is amazing is that others would have just done a timeline, and here the timeline is a just a side point to a much cooler conversation. :P
4:39 They DO try to contact the police. In her text message to the real her, Nanette says "Many people trapped in a game. Contact cyber police".
One thing I think is missed in this video, in the question between "sentient copies" versus "computer simulation" is how the cookies are generally made. The thing that makes the recreation in Be Right Back different is only the different manner in which information is collected. In White Christmas, we're told that the cookie is implanted and for an extended period it soaks up all the information it can directly from the person's brain. It's tapping the immediate, most authentic and complete source for information about how the person works. It still takes the information it's given and assembles a recreation. It's effective above and beyond the recreation in Be Right Back because that was collecting information from outside. From online postings, and emails, and other such. It's not different in essence, only in efficacy of creation.
USS Callister stands out more distinctly, as he can apparently somehow create sentient copies with complete memories from the person's DNA, which is frankly the one thing that took me out of the story a little bit relative to other episodes requiring less suspension of disbelief. Memories can't be replicated from DNA harvested from the sources he had.
Screenprism always answers the burning questions I have about black mirror, you guys rock!
Isn't Cookie Joe kinda like Dorian Gray if police could interrogate the portrait? I really need to watch this series, I love this kind of speculative sci-fi.
Felicity Swan It's really good! White Christmas was scary.
Awh, you got tons of spoilers.
Felicity Swan Watch it when you get the chance! It's an amazing show
Greatest series I have every watched in my life. So much depth and thought provoking discussions. Cannot wait for season 5
Kind of like Altered Carbon. I'd like to be able make a copy of myself and observe how I react to things from a third person perspective. Truly learn from yourself
Andrew Edwards Here’s something to consider. Is that copy still you, though? Or is it now someone else? You’re not really the one doing. You’re observing. Unless you think you should be held accountable for the actions of your alternate self. I guess it could be a look at what you would have done, had you been in the position of your copy. But in order to keep your copy from behaving differently, you might need to be dishonest with your other self and let it believe that it’s still you. Of course, this would require putting this copy in a fabricated and dishonest environment where it doesn’t know it’s being watched by you. Maybe it’s a good thing that our technology isn’t advanced enough to do this stuff yet. Or maybe I’m just overthinking things.
The most interesting theory I've seen is that Metalhead takes place simultaneously as Black Museum in Nisch and Rollos present time. The thing about Metalhead is that nothing suggests the entire world is like that, only the place that they're in. And who are the characters in that Episode? The roaches from Men Against Fire. The robot dogs were created by the military as genocide machines to wipe out the roaches more efficiently than the soldiers could in that Episode. Also the clip in Black Museum that talks of the creation of the dogs takes place in the past from Nischs' and Rollos perspective. So several years could have passed and allowed the dogs to become ubiquitous in their genocidal efforts to kill the roaches.
I never knew the people in Hang the DJ were cookies... I never picked up on that. Anyone else?
Excellent take. One thing I understood after watching this is that the terms of heaven and hell are more realistic than just mere interpretations of religious texts which may be true but don't have a proof. Our actions in the highly advanced world decides our fate in far less time than it takes now. And I also want to admit that I think, PAIN is the main constraint we need to check if a digital copy is indeed real. Anyways, thanks for the video! Looking forward for some more on Black Mirror.
There is a major plot hole with USS Callister. In all the other episodes, they copy consciousness using a machine on your brain. But in USS Callister, Daly copied his co-workers using only DNA, I don't think a coffee cup lid has all the information you need to create a conscious digital copy of a person.
Yeah that's what made it less interesting.
It haunts me to this day.
Yeah that kind of broke the immersion to me but the episode is still one of my favorites
Really, that's what made it less egregious. He was cloning people from work/life, but they were JUST clones physically. He had to code their personalities and did so to his own specifications. They were only meant to be what he wanted them to be, not what the actual person's consciousness/personality was.
its a plothole tbh
I love it when a random video on CZcams all of a sudden gets really deep and then makes me hit the like button and then click subscribe.
The most likely San Junepero postcard explanation is , in my opinion, that the dead relatives is able to stay in contact with their family in this limited way. If its all in the cloud, it would be so east to send messages to the outside
Great video! The "legal" part of the analysis really got me thinking: if they have legal responsibility then they MUST have human rights too. If a chunk of code that resembles a person can be held accountable for a real person's crime, how can that code not have the real person's rights?
Also this made me think about Westworld and how at the end of season 1 it's hinted that the "hosts" might be a step further in evolution, so instead of being objects or slaves created to serve humans they might actually be superior to the human race as it currently is.
So maybe in their respective universes the cookies and the hosts will fully replace humans (even though this might be impossible for cookies considering that they cannot be created, but they must be extracted from a human mind).
PS: it would be great to have a Westworld/Black mirror crossover
That "store" is a drop shipping site with shit quality clothes, not to mention how illegal it is to use that many copyrighted characters (aka a lawsuit of up to $10,000 each character). There about me clams they are "made to order" but they don't have a single original design. After best its copyright infringement at their worst there committing art fraud. just saying you might want to avoid them if you want to build a good brand.
Cringe
*Black Mirror + ScreenPrism = Dang good Video .. the Legality of the Cookie and treatment of digital copies always boggle me while watching Black Mirror .. Thanks for this Fascinating Breakdown !!*
Ever since i seen all of the episodes black mirror, when ever i play video games i wonder if it just "random segments of code" or somthing more...
Feels like I'm already living in some type of simulation.. I don't remember signing up for this yet here I am... stuck in a world I can't remember how I got here or where I was before. Forced to power the machine and limited in my choices with no idea when it ends or where I will go after... Black mirror is just telling us where we already are imo.. the most powerful message for me in all this is be careful what you sign up for
Beware of the Coockie Monster.
It would be so interesting to see what Charlie Brooker thinks of your videos. You guys should be on his writing team.
Keep it up😊.
I really enjoyed your take on how we could create a heaven and hell on Earth. Really powerful and thought provoking!
Wow! This video is soooooo amazing. 🤯 I hadn't even thought about most of these themes and their implications.
I absolutely LOVE this show!!!! Awesome video! I love hearing the different views and things I might have missed on Black Mirror. PLEASE MORE SEASONS!
one question ive always had with cookies: how are you so sure that in san junipero your actual conciousness is uploaded into the cloud. It's a copy of yourself. A COPY. Your core conciousness never leaves with your body, it dies with you. And a copy of you lives in digital paradise. Sounds like a monumental scam!
Great video, very detailed and in-depth.
It's funny how death is universaly feared through history, but when you think about it is blessing. A blessing that guarantees us that we won't be tortured forever.
Love this video, thank you! Anyone know when they're dropping season 5?
7:10 Could it be possible real humans could log into this "cloud hell" and play as the dog, so completely immersed in it they'd experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with the pain and feelings of the condemned cookie people, much like how we experience cognitive dissonance when beefing online, poking fun at a public figure, malicious twitters, etc., to the point where it overrides empathy?
Impressive analysis, great job on this video!
I love the discussion about acknowledging and comparing the conscious copy to a soul. Actually, everything discussed in this video is brilliant. Thanks!
Cookies getting criminal liability before rights is pretty similar to chattel slaves in the United States too.
Great video! Love your passion for stuff like this :)
y'all are on point, as always! :)
After seeing this, I'd love to hear your take on the show Dollhouse. It covers a lot of the same area, but on a more detailed, irl level
The thing is, even a digital copy isn't us. People seem to think that we will one day just copy ourselves onto a server and therefore live forever- which may be true, in a way. But once copied, the original remains. And the original will die. The copy will live on as long as the server does- so long as it really is programmed for immortality. The copy will have all memories and be by all rights, You, but not the You you are now. The copy may live on, but we are, ultimately, doomed as mortal beings. Of course, this is a body-centric view of the issue, which maybe one day science will be able to refute, but even if it does there may be no way of knowing it. If the copy is fully cognisant, they will say that it worked- that they are who they are and are aware of it, and thus their consciousness has been moved. But who's to say that it really has? Moving is different from copying. I'd like to see a Black Mirror episode about that.
Here is how we can define a mental construct as a person or not.
1. Is it aware of itself as a self?
2. Is it capable of self-motivated activity?
3. Is it capable of reasoning and making decisions?
4. Is it capable of communicating to others?
5. Does it display consciousness?
It it answers yes to all 5 auestions it is a person, regardless of whether its human or not. And being a person, it is deserving of moral consideration.
The first time I really thought about and was disturbed because of this idea was when I watched a let's play of SOMA. Black Mirror is very reminiscent of that game and brings up many of the same philosophical questions. Yes, a consciousness deserves to have its rights protected. It has the same awareness as a physical human mind and therefore deserves the same considerations.
I have never seen Black mirror but i must say that if felt like that the while Set of episode from what i saw through this video also put in question further questions like can you consider artificial intelligence as something with consiousness or something alive? Is a perfect copy/peplica of you a different person and at what extense? Both of these questions in the end lead to the question: what can we consider life or alive?
Black Mirror should dedicate a full season on exploring what happened to all these characters after years of punishment and years of isolation and take it from there
Ik im like 3 years late, howdy, but that would be pretty disturbing-
Wonderful as always!!!
I've been really enjoying your videos. Please consider making one about the BBC series Years and Years.
It bugged me that in USS Calister, he manages to "make copies" from DNA. Like how are all your memories and experiences up until that point, including your adult personality, preserved in the virtual you? Wouldn't you just be like a genetic clone, unaware of your real life? A blank slate? That's just one example of the plot holes that prevent us from fully answering the questions BM presents on this issue. Though it's still the single most prescient issue the show addresses.
IF there were only one datastream, as Ray Kurzweil suggests with his post "Singularity" concept of "Uploading our minds to the cloud", then this *would* be us and thus, human and deserving of the same rights. But if it's just a copy (one of many), possibly without even the same memory storing and/or emotional experiences as a human, that could be very different. All these are deep philosophical questions which may be starring back at us sooner than we think from mankind's *actual* black mirror of technological progress.
Your DNA now is different than at birth. These changes can be seen at the cellular level before even diving down to the code itself. For one your telomeres shrink in size proportionally to your age. Your DNA also experiences epigenetic effects that correlate to your life experiences (your genes are activated variably based on environmental factors). That's how scientists can estimate the age of an individual from a sample. This estimate gets even more accurate if they have a previous sample as they can compare the changes in telomeres, epigenetic changes, etc. The metaphorical comparison of DNA to software is more astute than we realize. Just as the codebase for services is always changing to maintain and improve the service so too do our genes to maintain and improve our bodies. Our DNA may not have all our memories but it does store a historical record of our lives. Match that with a super advanced social media profile and you may get a pretty faithful representation of a person
I agree that they should have explained the process a little more to make it seem believable, but the overall moral and technical questions and philosophies still remain. I didn't let that lack of detail ruin the episode for me. It's still one of my favorites.
What was the timeline again? Just to have a re-watch in that same order
This reminds me a lot of the Star Trek: TNG episode "Measure of a Man" where Data is put on trial to determine if he should have rights or not, since he is an artificial being.
Before CZcams notiffies me!
Great video girls.
In a similar fashion to Pascal's Wager:
for all of the people who are uncertain of or say we can't possibly know whether or not the cookies are sentient and if they should be given rights on that basis- that's the exact reason why we have to assume they are. There's too great a risk in not giving cookies human rights. If they aren't sentient, then no harm either way, and if they are, then they're protected at least to an extent to humanity's worst impulses.
this is becoming really insane lol....my favorite channel posts every time I’m enjoying a morning joint
I love you guys!
Martin Pagon saaaaame
How do I when Siri is sentient
didn't expect to have an existential crisis this early in the day but hey
The most disturbing part for me is the lack of empathy no matter if they are really human or not. My nature wouldn't allow me to do something so disgusting even the thought about it makes me sick.
People have created slavery so I definitely know it's possible
I'd love to see your process for making these videos. Have you girls thought of making podcast or something?
I Have theory about the dogs in Metalhead.I think at some point in the Timeline the Digital copies Rebelled against humanity, like the copies in uss callister. So I think the dogs are being controlled by tourmented AI getting back at humans.So from that point of view the dogs are the protagonists.
Are you guys going to analyse altered carban?
I think if they are sentient and can feel pain they should have rights
I personally think Metalhead is well just a game. A scary scary game but a game nonetheless why else would they be going after teddy bears and everything is in Black and White?
L. T C. When I watched the metal head episode I thought immediately about the Mommy loves you Teddy... (I watched Black museum before metal head)
L. T C. Someone was dying, a kid i believe, they wanted the teddy bear to help hin feek better on his last days,
empty sky it was a White Bear
AionMexico and they had the exact location of the teddy bears with box number and everything? There is more to the bear.
I always thought that episode was a mere survival game and I really enjoyed it but it was still somewhere closer to the bottom of my BM list for that reason ... but now people are linking it to events related to Men Against Fire, Black Museum, and even San Junipero! This shared universe is too much for me to handle!
Holy shit, didn’t even realize the Shut up and dance Easter egg in Black Museum!!! Brilliant use of the Easter egg that is so subtle and yet, it alludes to the essential theme of the season 3 episode
Great video like always!
Amazing analysis of the show!
I never spotted the shut up and dance Easter egg with the mice in black museum - that was pretty school screenprism
Can’t believe people struggle with answering this question.
They need to do " Black Mirror" episodes about A.I. Music, A.I. Preachers, and :A.I. Jesus Christ", and how it leads to "The Book of Revelations". happening.
In thinking about the "Soul vs Code" aspect, I look at it like this. If I make a copy of my consciousness while I'm awake, does my perception travel into the copy? If so, then I would see that as the Soul (not sure what is left behind in the original body at that point). If not, and I am aware of my own consciousness still in my original body, then I would see it as "Code". However, if I were to enter a VR-type world, while conscious, and later find out that I am actually the code, "I" would feel and argue that this is my soul. In a way, it's a mystery just as much as dying is a mystery. I look forward to more stories following this line of speculation.
I think “white bear” could also be to a cookie, the punishment is so cruel and constant it goes against her basic humans rights and from what I can tell of black mirror, they tend to only do things like that to cookies. Also one of the news articles in another episode mentions that she tried to commit suicide in her cell, but we know she is never in a cell from the punishment. Plus recoding a cookies mind and making it forget the last 24 hours would be easier to do to something that was already data rather then a human being. Just like how other cookies are tortures and punished for their originals crimes, I think this may be a similar story.
How you explained Metal Head was brilliant 👍
I think Be Right Back was the first example of cookies. It was heavily flawed but if you gave it a while to evolve it could have become gradually more and more accurate like in San junipero
I think if you have to ask the question if someone deserves rights or not the answer is probably always yes
I always wondered when watching Black Mirror: Why does cut/paste conscious has rights, where copy/paste doesn't?
Seeing this whole thing from a timeline perspective still raises the same question for me; if the invention was there, people would have gain more intel on the whole concept of it I would think.
I think the characters in the earlier episodes of Black Mirror were more stuck in the bio vs digi fight for rights where the later ones are not, which apparently is a general character arc into itself that took a seemingly hundred year to develop.
Good grief I hope we'll learn from this series: technological technology without respect is reflected in Black Mirror in a similar fashion that the lack of respect was shown when cloning dinosaurs in Jurassic Park/World.
San juno was beautiful one of my fav episodes of black mirror
Am I the only one who did not connect these episodes at all with any timeline? I feel dumb now :D .
Almost a year after this video was made we find out Metalhead is.. *spoiler*..
a video game.
I had to cut myself off from Black Mirror a couple weeks ago because i felt i might be getting a little too obsessed with the whole idea of digital copies. Great video!
I love Black Mirror and as a science fiction show it has done a pretty good job portraying near-future technological dystopian worlds but I think they are putting too much emphasis on "sentient digital copies" as if have already worked out what consciousness is, one way they do this is by anthropomorphizing the supposedly digital copies so we think of them as humans beings instead of just code.
To cut short AI being sentient is more than just memories, empathy, & rationality. So it's a relative situation that depend on the complexity of the AI digital copies on becoming true sentient being.
Sick thesis.
Dark but true love your video
As much as I enjoyed San Junipero and would definitely go for the prospect of eternity with someone I love, the dangers may outweigh the blessings. Are there servers for everyone's desires and would me and my lover be safe from homophobes? System malfuctions, power outages?
These videos really make me want to get into Black Mirror and read Phillip K Dick (and finish watching that Amazon Prime Phillip K Dick anthology series, I saw about half the episodes a while back and they were amazing I just got too broke to pay for prime lol)
Metalhead is obviously some sort of game of hunt the human where the protagonists and other humans in the episode are cookies, or at least cookie-like. We see a game called Metll Hedd in Bandersnatch which suggests that there is a game existing called Metalhead, so the new Metalhead could be a remake or reboot or at least sequel to the original, where you play as the robot dog hunting down cookies.
That´s a good point made about the White Christmas episode which I hadn´t thought of. Why should a digital copy have a worse fate than the actual Joe who commited the crime? As far as I know Joe in the cell wasn´t connected to what it´s copy was experiencing. Maybe I´m wrong, I don´t know.
Man! All this makes the San Junipero episode seem dark. Damn you Black Mirror!
So, these digital copies of human minds are essentially sentient AIs. I get the sense that regular AIs could become sentient over time if given the chance. In the "I'll be right back" episode, it seemed to me that they had taken a new being and imprinted with a bunch of social media stuff into its consciousness instead of an actual brain copy.
The Black Mirror timeline is like The X-Men movies timeline: Kinda messed up. Highly appreciated how you and Gamespot Universe can make sense of it, the only caveat I can clearly point out for this show (besides some questionable/divisive episodes that don't match in quality with the rest *cough Nose Dive cough, cough Metalhead cough*
I definitely would not opt to have my consciousness uploaded to the cloud or turned into a digital copy. I’m not a religious person, but I do have a religious bias from my younger years and I just can’t not believe that I have a soul that extends beyond any technological influence. I’d rather leave it up to nature to take its due course and take a chance that I might actually have a soul and that there might actually be a place of rest for my soul.
I feel like Daly's fate was well-deserved and just because he was solely responsible for it. No one else overpowered him or forced him into that situation, he chose to fight on and trap himself instead of exiting the game when he still could've. As opposed to eternal/extended punishments that the other villains of the show endure, I'd generally assume that Daly's digital presence (not copy) in the game will cease as soon as he dies from dehydration/starvation (which was confirmed to be his fate I believe). It's fitting and simple, he loses and he dies.
Lovely video essay, great as always! I have one question : why should anyone want to make a digital copie of themselves to upload them into digital heaven? It’s only a copy, if you die in the real world , you’re dead. It seems pointless to me, to make a copy of myself , so it can live forever after I have died. It doesn’t bringt me back from the dead, I just unnecessarily created another sentinend being, which eventually has to face death at some point too. So why would anyone want that ?
I feel crocodile should be included as it shows that human consciousness can be digitally extracted albeit in short segments.