GEMINOID F - slave woman of the future?

(Credit: AFP Photo/Yoshikazu Tsuno: news.cnet.com)

In cyber-culture human beings have become increasingly reliant on machines, and as a result, a question has arisen in science fiction films as well as in research on artificial intelligence and robotics as to whether a machine might be considered worthy of the rights afforded to individuals, rather than exist just simply as the property of its owners. This reflects a concern for non-human others as well as human values. In Star Trek: The Next Generation, Episode 35 ‘The Measure Of a Man’ (1989), issues such as free will, agency and slavery are broached in relation to whether or not the android, Lieutenant Commander Data is a sovereign subject. 

In Bicentennial Man (Chris Colombus 1999) and AI: Artificial Intelligence (Steven Spielberg 2001) the androids are introduced into a family to serve various domestic needs, and strive to become recognized as human because they have been programmed with the ability to express human feelings and emotions. Although Andrew (Robin Williams) in Bicentennial Man is one of many that have been mass produced, David (Hayley Joel Osment) the android child is unique for he is the first Mecca of his kind and is programmed to bond with his organic mother, Monica (Frances O’Connor). The emphasis on the real (organic) rather than the artificial (android or mecca) is stressed in both films. Paradoxically, the view that emotion is an expression of a human essence is challenged in the film by the fact that both human emotion and android emotion are exhibited by facial expressions, emotive language and behavior in contrast to the dispassionate and expressionless robots familiar to us from earlier science fiction films. Since machines do not have a psychology as such, they are not meant to exhibit anything other than rational detachment in all situations.

Emotions are said to be the product of chemical and neural responses in the body produced from the affects of the external world, the reflection of an internal psyche, as well as learnt behaviour. They are usually inscribed on the face by the tensing or relaxation of facial muscles, which raise or lower the eyebrows and affect the contours of the mouth. As such it is possible to argue that both humans and sophisticated androids are able to produce external markers of an emotion as well as being able to mimic them. However, regardless of whether a person is expressing a real or feigned emotion, we generally react to such expressions as though they are real. However, even the lack of obvious emotion maybe an expression of an emotional state.
In both films aforementioned, the androids look human and although they tend to interpret information literally, they also seek to belong to the family or community, to be loved and recognized as subjects in their own right. However, it was the fact that they were programmed to express emotion that created alarm for their families, who expect them, as machines, to be unfeeling, rational and controllable. For both androids, it is their very display of human qualities as well as their lack of human biology that betrays them.
Geminoid F, a speaking, singing fem-bot designed by Japanese robotic engineer,  Hiroshi Ishiguro, is an actual android, not a character from science fiction. She is equipped with twelve motorised actuators, powered by air pressure and flexible rubber facial skin that allow her to mimic human expressions and emotions. However, she is more than this for she is an exact replica of a real life Japanese woman in her twenties. With the development of such a technology we are not far from realizing a world that mirrors Surrogrates (Jonathan Mostow, 2009), in which remote controlled surrogates - basically a robotic clone of the exterior of a human being, undertakes a persons life for them so that they may live in safety, away from the real world, away from human touch and potential danger.
Although Ishigura developed an android of himself in 2006, it is not a surprise to me that Geminoid F is female and is primarily designed to 'work' as a receptionist, museum guide or patient attendant in hospitals. She could work in a factory, vacuum floors or make sushi. This attractive, twenty something,  individual (if I may call her that) is essentially a smiling, well behaved, compliant slave who does what she is told to. Isn't that every man's dream? Could Geminoid F eventually become a sophisticated sex doll? What will the feminists think?
Concern about this kind of technological development (at least for me) is not that Geminoid F is uncanny for her ability to look and behave human, but that she is paid for and owned by the company that purchases her and unlike a human counterpart, who she will replace, she will not complain, strike or walk off the job, thus becoming a threat to humans who continually seek better and more equitable working conditions. Automatic teller machines replaced humans in the 1970s and today there are about 1.2 million industrial robots that have replaced humans in the workplace. GemF is another robot that has the potential to replace us in more ways than one!

Putting the mob in its place

The brutal suppression of a peaceful protest in Melbourne City Square on October 21 by riot police using attack dogs and chemical weapons signifies a changing relationship between government and governed.

A State government clinging to power by a single vote would not normally set attack dogs upon voters. But these do not seem to be normal times.

This month Australian business heavyweight Don Argus declared war on Australian shareholders unhappy with the average five million dollar paycheck for Australian corporate executives running top 100 companies.

The corporate gravy train is threatened by laws which give Australian shareholders the right to protest against excessive corporate pay packets. Shareholders can move to reject company directors salaries at annual general meetings. But according to Mr. Argus they should not.

Shareholders unhappy with executive remuneration could, he said, sell their shares. And Australians are selling their shares, driving equity markets to historical lows, while executive pay packets soar to new heights.

The town or city square is historically a place for ordinary people to meet and to sometimes protest. Melbourne's city square is an uninviting place surrounded by businesses paying exorbitant rent to trade in a people's place. It is difficult to think of any public space in Melbourne which has not been encroached upon by commercial interests, but our city square represents, after years of mismanagement by Melbourne City Council, the biggest example of an overly commercialized public space in Melbourne.

Don Argus and Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle have turned upon the Australian public who own what they, temporarily and at great expense, control, and there is very little ordinary Australians can do about it. Except vote them out at the next opportunity.

The strange rules of Australian corporate governance guarantee that a single vote against exorbitant executive remuneration is not enough. Shareholders have to vote against corporate remuneration policies at two annual general meetings in a row, to force a change. Company directors only need to vote once to increase their pay. Strange times.

Another strangeness about these times is that freedom has become divisible, with Melbourne's Lord Mayor suddenly acquiring the right to declare a time limit on free speech. This limit exists only in the Lord Mayors mind, and that of the Federal and State political class who endorsed his actions.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights says:

All human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political rights, such as the right to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression; economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to work, social security and education , or collective rights, such as the rights to development and self-determination, are indivisible, interrelated and interdependent. The improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others.

The rights of corporations to profit seem to outweigh the rights of citizens to ask questions, to discuss, to assemble, and to protest, at least two to one. It is by any reasonable standard a situation which is probably not fair. It is certainly an indication that individuals have less social gravity in modern affairs than corporations. And that will be welcomed by the political classes, always on the lookout for ways to profit, and cling to power, and to demonize and brutalize what they have called "sheep" and a "mob" opposing them.

A short discussion of technique

Julie asked me to write something about how I make the images I make. This is a rather large topic. I guess people would be most interested in how a computer program "makes" an image, and of course any discussion of computer generated imagery tends to focus upon the mechanical process involved. Notwithstanding my own boredom with discussions of software algorithms, and especially hardware setups, I'll give it my best shot.

My background is in real-time computer simulation, what used to be called Virtual Reality, until the term became meaningless with overuse. The two basic elements of this type of computer simulation are form, which is achieved with mathematical models loosely called geometry, and colour, the interaction of simulated light rays with the geometry. The interaction of geometry and light is mediated by a layer of abstraction loosely called a pixel shader. Shaders are applied to regions of geometry to simulate the way light behaves in real life, or not, depending upon the artist and subject.

The image of the violet clouds is a rather large print, an arms-length square that hangs on a wall in my home (cropped here to cope with Blogger's preference for photo-sized images). I love sunrise, and sunsets, and the colours in the image are drawn from many memories of the collision of red and blue light, those colours at opposite ends of light's visible spectrum that produce such a spectacular display when reflected in the world from open water and refracted by clouds.

The image is entirely computer generated from mathematical formulae. I use assistive software called Mojo, developed by Dr. Kenton Musgrave, who worked with Benoit Mandelbrot to produce some celebrated images called Mandelbrots in the 1980s. Mojo has a 400 page user manual, of which around a third expounds a philosophy of fractal geometry.

The software leverages dilation symmetry, a property of self-similarity arising from the application of fractal geometry in mathematics. The image labelled Function Graph Editor [SKY COLOR BLENDS INPUT] gives an example of the way I programmed the software to produce a shader to colour the violet clouds. The "land" and "sea" in the image are programmed the same way.

The software drew the image of the violet clouds in small portions. It took a fast computer a couple of days to calculate the raw data used to create the image in computer memory. The image was then saved on a hard disk drive as a high resolution Truevision (TARGA) RGB image file. Once an image is saved on a computer hard drive it can be printed, resized for use as a graphic on the world wide web, or posted to a photo sharing site as if it were a photograph. Or reused as part of another image.

There are many discussions along the lines of is computer generated imagery art? on the internet. The last I listened to, a rather lengthy harangue from someone I endured at a Monash University seminar around twenty five years ago, was arguing that if you can't see any brush strokes it aint art. Alternatively, a hundred monkeys could turn out the same thing, over time.

Maybe so. But everyone has a medium they are comfortable with, and this is mine.

The role of work and blogs

I think essentially I am a lazy person. I believe this stems from being raised as an only child, I became very accustomed to having things my own way and having adults to do things for me.
I am not proud of this, it is just how it is.
Surprisingly as an adult I have worked with a fairly high degree of commitment in my paid work. This was at odds with my natural aversion to work, I think this was due to the feeling of achievement that work provides. The sense of purpose, of making a difference is what drives me in the workplace. Around the house or garden I rarely feel the same reward. One exception recently was Christmas, I did enjoy decorating the table and making a meal for my family.

This brings me to a question that is relevant today, as I usually blog on a Monday. Is this blog work? What is the purpose of the blog and is it making any difference? Before being a blogger I got a lot out of reading Julie's blog. I respect Julie and have made a commitment to her to be part of this blog, however sometimes I feel I don't provide the level of input that is required. Should I spend many hours researching to ensure I write material that is worthy? Should I edit and re edit? Well for now I just provide my current thoughts and a few links that may interest you. Remember Don Burke was called 'The Lazy Gardener', perhaps I am the lazy blogger.

Anyway I am committed to the promotion of Indigenous issues and here is some information of value.

'murundak - songs of freedom'

Friday February 11, 2011, 8:30pm... join us in the O'Donnell Gardens
for a FREE SCREENING.

Follow the journey of the Black Arm Band, Australia's Indigenous
supergroup, in this feature documentary that travels to the heart of
Aboriginal protest music. From the Sydney Opera House to remote
Northern Territory communities, 'murundak - songs of freedom' captures
anthemic songs of sorrow, anger and hope from pioneering artists
including Bart Willoughby, Kutcha Edwards, Archie Roach and the late
Ruby Hunter as well as emerging artists Shellie Morris, Emma Donovan
and Dan Sultan.

http://www.stkildafestival.com.au/2011-s2/whatson.php?key=2011-02-11&page=2

A Daybreak Films Production. Produced in association with Film Camp,
SBS, Screen Australia, Film Victoria, City of Melbourne and the Black
Arm Band.

The filmmakers wish to advise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people that this film contains images and voices of deceased persons.

Classification: As murundak - songs of freedom has not been
classified, people under 15 years of age will not be admitted without
a parent or adult guardian.