This blog post delves deeply into the boundary between humans and machines, and the criteria for ‘humanity’.
Led by deep learning, artificial intelligence is advancing day by day. Deep learning, which derives answers using statistical techniques, falls far short of strong artificial intelligence—AI possessing true intelligence. However, devices utilizing deep learning can significantly alter humans. In the previous sentence, “altering humans” means expanding the limits of ordinary humans by using tools they can wield, equipment they can wear, and implantable devices. Examples range from simple calculators and computers to artificial organs, RFID chips, and even brain-implanted chips that assist with information processing. Humans using such tools transcend ordinary humanity, becoming, quite literally, superhumans.
The emergence of superhumans sparks debate about how much replacement by machines is permissible before one can still be considered human. This connects not only to technological advancement but also to philosophical and ethical questions. For instance, where do human dignity and autonomy originate, and do these characteristics remain valid for beings fused with machines? Furthermore, how should we resolve the new inequalities and resulting social conflicts that arise with the advent of superhumans? Thus, the fusion of machines and humans transcends mere technological innovation, potentially becoming a new challenge humanity must face.
To provide answers, we will compare scenarios ranging from mild to extreme to determine what constitutes human and non-human. Ultimately, since the boundary between being human and non-human cannot be precisely defined, we conclude that humans are indefinable, and if something cannot be distinguished from humans, it is human.
First, consider someone who uses computers and smartphones without implanting any devices in their body, like a modern human. The difference in computational ability between someone who completely avoids electronic devices and someone who skillfully uses various electronic devices is incomparable. Yet, no one claims that using electronic devices makes someone non-human. Even if an AI machine assisting judgment makes all decisions for every situation, since the decision-maker is ultimately human, even formally, we can conclude that person is human.
Then, let’s consider cases where parts of the body are replaced by machines. First, imagine someone who has lost limbs and uses prosthetic arms or legs, or someone who has suffered skin burns and uses artificial skin. Even now, there are people using prosthetic limbs and arms, living confidently as human beings. And almost no one would claim these individuals are not human. Without prosthetic limbs, they cannot walk or grasp objects, but everything else is identical to other people. Crucially, they think and make judgments just like others, so they cannot be fundamentally different. In other words, there is no reason to say they are not human. Extending this further, even if all organs were artificial, they would still be human because they would perform thought and judgment identically.
But what if we go further? What if the machine-replaced organ surpasses human capabilities, going beyond mere assistance? Consider, for example, an artificial heart functioning far more powerfully and efficiently than a natural heart, or an artificial arm operating with far greater strength and precision than human muscle. The discussion of how such enhanced physical capabilities might affect human identity becomes even more complex. While there is no doubt that such enhanced abilities could contribute to improving human life, there is also the possibility that they could blur the very definition of what it means to be human.
So what about a case where the brain is artificial? In the previous scenario, we concluded that the ultimate reason for being human is identical thought and judgment processes. Therefore, if the brain is artificial, we must conclude that it is not human. In other words, the brain determines whether one is human or not. Furthermore, if the entire body is human but only the brain is an artificial one made from a CPU, it seems like nothing more than a machine wearing a human mask. However, we cannot hastily decide based solely on the presence or absence of a brain.
Consider the following scenario: If a chip enhancing brain function is implanted in a person, is that person still human? What about a chip that adjusts input values to improve hearing, or one that modulates visual data to enhance sight? Would that person still be human? I believe the answer is yes. Because even if the chip were removed, the person would merely experience a reduction in ability but could still live on. Now, consider a case where part of the brain develops cancer or malfunctions, necessitating its removal and replacement with a machine. If removing this machine would prevent them from continuing to live, we cannot say they are not human.
Thus, the presence or absence of a brain is not a problem that can be decided by 0s and 1s. The conclusion that even a partial brain makes something human is also ambiguous. If only one cell is human and the rest is all machine, defining it as human becomes unclear. If that were the case, one could argue that attaching a single human brain cell to artificial intelligence would make it human.
Considering the above cases, when non-brain parts of a human are replaced with machinery, it can still think and judge normally, thus remaining human. If the brain itself is replaced, humanhood cannot be determined solely by the presence or absence of a brain. Ultimately, defining whether something is human or not at any specific moment becomes impossible. One could simply conclude that if born as Homo sapiens, it is human, but there is more to consider.
If an android indistinguishable from a human lives integrated into society, that android could live without any difference from a human. Ultimately, we arrive at the final conclusion that if society cannot distinguish whether the brain is a CPU or an actual brain, it is correct to recognize it as human. The crucial point here is the need for humanity to contemplate how it will accept this change and establish new social and ethical standards. In the era ahead, the concept of ‘human’ will no longer be fixed but will become a continuously evolving definition. This will present humanity with both new challenges and opportunities.
