My Will Can Beat up Your Will

There is an odd idea that seems pervasive throughout U.S. culture and exists without much context or discussion. You may readily think of any number of examples where that could apply, but I refer to the notion of "will-power" as the determining factor in a conflict or contest. It struck me quite profoundly as I watched a scene in Marvel's movie Avengers: Infinity War. It has been mentioned elsewhere online and likely argued over by nerds everywhere since its release in 2018. The scene happens towards the end of the film, where Captain America holds back Thanos for a second. It has been established that Thanos is  a super-humanly powerful being, and him being the only one with the will to see his plan through. While Rogers is an enhanced human, he should be no match for Thanos. Yet, what defines Captain America is his refusal to stand down; he has faced unfair odds all his life and never hesitated to fully commit to the fight. The message is clear: this moment is not about objective or physical strength, but all about a will to win. Those few moments of struggle convey much of the idea which I am suggesting is problematic in real life.

Fantasy may be a grand place for such notions, where the very desire for an outcome creates the result one wants. However, it is too easy for people to delude themselves that such things are possible in reality. If you think no one could fall for this nonsense, remember that people pray for things or talk about "manifesting" their desires. I will include another aspect of comic/superhero tropes: the strength, agility, stamina, and other attributes that characters have without having to work at it. On a practical level, it allows the story to move quickly and focus on drama or action within the limited time of a book or movie. However, this also conveys ideas around innate, rather than learned and trained, skills. It seems connected to this "I should have this because I want it" ideal. Also, it is important as it relates to "fixed" and "growth" mindsets, which are worth exploring outside this post. Both these notions (will-power and innate talent) reflect ideas of worthiness and competition. I also recognize that we are dealing with the influence of media and entertainment upon consumers, and how people integrate the ideas they are exposed to from an early age. This is another topic for its own discussion. You may notice I am also not criticizing willpower in general. Grit has recently had a turn in the spotlight, and received a deserved discussion; we do not need to examine that here.

To return to the subject at hand, the psychological term for the belief that we can get something just by wanting is "magical thinking". This term is usually applied to and descriptive of the minds of children. Simply put, a child thinks of something they want and it then happens: someone they were mad at gets hurt or the sky clears of clouds when they want to go outside. There are a number of cognitive fallacies having to do with cause-and-effect, which are abandoned as we learn about the world. Magical thinking can be pernicious because of social pressures and/or personal experiences. Another component of this is children being egocentric. It is normal development for young humans to have no innate understanding that parts of the world are separate from them and their concerns. To a child, everything that they experience is about them and because of them. It is estimated that we develop empathy (here meaning an ability to consider others' experiences) by roughly 8 years of age. As with all abilities, empathy requires support to fully develop, so this depends on individual experience. Along with empathy, it is likely we also differentiate our self from the rest of the world during the same process. After all, it requires understanding that others are separate from ourselves in order to empathize with their differences. To believe that I should get what I want simply because I want it, or want it "more" (what scale measures that?) than someone else, is a selfish and egocentric belief. Once we are able to understand that others have similar desires, we can start to outgrow this tendency. We find it is just part of living with other humans that only sometimes do we get what we want. Unless there is an unlimited supply of something, we must take turns. This knowledge can inform our social development, as how we seek to fulfill needs comes into contact with others.

Above, I mentioned "worthiness and competition", and now these ideas come into focus. We must have methods for sharing, determining whose turn it is, and mitigating disappointment. These "wins" and "losses" can influence how we see ourselves, and how deserving we believe ourselves to be. It may be tempting to construct some superhuman entity which makes these determinations, thus relieving us of the burden of being the winner. Seeing others lose out hurts us because it is natural to empathize with them. We also know what it feels like because of our own turns as the loser. However, that magical thinking denies our agency in the very things we want because it eliminates the work and sacrifice of "taking turns". It gives up our self-determination, as it becomes a matter of some "universal force" making those decisions. While it can be a mitigating strategy ("I just was not meant to win" or "God willed it so"), it allows little room for improvement and skill-building. This is why it is so closely tied with fixed and growth mindsets. For any number of reasons, the creation of a supernatural force determining who "wins" is problematic. Now that we have arrived at some understanding of the developmental and social factors involved, we have opportunities to influence what sort of world we live in. Do we prefer a competitive world where each must develop methods of manipulation (of both self and others) to achieve goals? Do we prefer a cooperative world where we accept and encourage rational and honest ways of interacting?

Why is Everything AI?

Fundamentally, I think every artistic creation asks the question: what does it mean to be human? Possibly because, as individuals irrevocably separate from one another, we seek ways to bridge this divide and be understood. The impetus for this post is the number of popular shows which revolve around artificial intelligence. In writing this, I wonder about what this art has to say about the subject.

It seems recent years have seen a glut of media offerings centered on this topic, ranging from movies (Ex Machina, Terminator, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Blade Runner 2049) to TV (Westworld, Humans, and the new Battlestar Galactica). Often, this AI fiction (wherein humans have created machines sophisticated enough to be self-aware) is presented as a battle between creator and creation. This goes back to the ancient Hebrew story of the golem, and became a staple of popular culture with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The theme has always been 'do not meddle with the affairs of gods'. The creation of life is reserved to those of god-like comprehension and powers, and any lesser being attempting the feat will be doomed by doing so. This is readily apparent in the subtitle of Shelley's book "modern Prometheus", referencing the Greek fable of a titan bringing the power of fire (sometimes 'knowledge') to humans. It is worth recognizing that in the fable, Prometheus is returning something that the gods had taken from humans. An interesting thought, that Frankenstein could be reclaiming something rightfully belonging to humanity.

Along with the inherent shaming messages in these stories, I find a contradiction as well. The central message of "you are not worthy to do this" is apparent and almost universal within the genre. However, the more recent iterations add the notion that these creations are-or, at least, see themselves as being-better than humans; this becomes the tension that must be resolved for the audience. The question of "which side will win?" becomes an existential contest, as the answer determines whether humanity or AI survive at the end of the story. This seems to continue the theme that humans are to be punished for the audacious act of creation. It is not that the project will fail because of the flaws of humanity, just that the unworthiness of humanity will imbue the creation with the desire to destroy the creator. In keeping with Greek mythology, it could also be a continuation of the theme of supplanting predecessors. The primordial gods had been overthrown by the Titans, who-in turn-were overthrown by the more familiar gods (Zeus, Ares, Poseidon, etc.). The contradiction I see is the fundamental truth that we make life all the time. We make little humans; we create life to continue the species. Here, again, our creations will supplant us. After all, that is their function: to inherit the world we build for them, and do better than we have. True, we sometimes parent poorly and we are not always deserving of having the responsibility for the life of another being. However, this is balanced by the truth that often it is the process of becoming a parent that allow us to become a better version of ourselves. Only through being forced into the reality of living that responsibility can we summon the courage to change for the better. This is not an argument in favor of having a child, that it is the only-or best-way to "grow up", nor to excuse abuse. It is meant to recognize some truths about us which the fictional escape of visual arts have not seemed to present. We do create life, and sometimes with little thought to the needs or subsequent experiences of that life.

Finally,  given we are using the tropes of AI fiction to examine reality, what are there real questions we should ask ourselves? Does this genre give us an outside perspective that allows us to see our flaws-especially those we wish we could deny? Is this a challenge to our present systems and a call to become those better versions of ourselves? Who ultimately bears the responsibility and consequences of creation? Because as much as AI is still in the future, we are parents right now. We are responsible for caring for the lives we have created already. For all those fictional flaws played out across the screen, there are real ones already playing out in our lives and our children. While it may be irritating that 'our side' loses in the fictional version, it is heartbreaking when we fail as a society in reality. We all experience that failure as creators and caretakers of life. It may be that the only way that we preserve ourselves, or we find ourselves worthy of preserving, is that we confront those parts of ourselves which make us less than the parents our children deserve. Maybe the reason humans are in peril in these AI stories is to demonstrate how vital it is to get creation right.

"Sold Out" or "Sell Out"?

I have often heard people comment on this or that person or group "selling out". In this sense meaning they aren't as "cool" as they were (generally because they are now successful) or they are doing something different than before. This may be another contrivance to make us feel better about our lack of creativity or, seen another way, a division to keep people distracted from an underlying tension. I will hold that it is due to a clash of fundamental values that the parties hold. The very nature of capitalism demands that items are produced for profit; this holds true even for artists. Artists have a desire to create and display or distribute their art. This means that anyone with a message they want to transmit has to "sell" it to do so; as do those who simply wish to live and create art. The artist will feel a "cheapening" of their art, with cause, as there is a grain of truth to people thinking art is not meant to be sold. Yet there is nothing in that which says we should vilify the artist for doing so. It is natural to want to create and, once created, to share that creation with others. It is also natural to want to survive and prosper; but to do so in a capitalist culture, one must have capital. So here we have another instance of "blaming the victim", where artists are disparaged for doing what is natural inside a system that is not.

See previous blog, on artists v. entertainers of 20July06, for more.

The Difference Between “Artist” and “Entertainer”

I am not trying to compare these two types, or to detract from what either of them does, or say that someone is "just" an entertainer, even though many times someone may say as much. That one is not as "intellectual", or on as "high a plane" as the other; it isn't that artists are better, or entertainers are "sell-outs" who have no morals left. An artist does what she does because she has to, it is for herself, her own joy/enrichment that she makes her art; many have expressed that they are driven to do what they do, something compels them to, irregardless of whether it is lucrative or not-I imagine this is where the "starving artist" stereotype comes from. It all stems from a complex of urges that we all share: the basic drives to connect, express, understand, and be understood. In the artist, however, it is amplified in some way and brought to the center-the spotlight, if you will-so that it is a more integral part of the character of the person. It may consume the individual, leaving little room for anything else, which most people may think I mean. Yet this also applies to the person with a consuming hobby, and it is this person who toils in obscurity and without reward that I think of. Those who, even after a long day's work will be "out in the work-shed" grinding away at some project. On the other hand, an entertainer does what he does because he wants to bring happiness or joy to other people, and feels better for having made you feel better. A strong empathy is needed, and an ability to connect, this is the basis for entertainment. Although some buffoons seem only to want to be celebrated for entertaining people, the true value of being entertained can be appreciated by anyone, and I'm sure goes back nearly as far as artistry. It is the hallmark of a society which has overcome the basic subsistence problem and thus has time for recreation that art and entertainment exist. One (or both) may seem more peripheral, unnecessary, or nonessential, but life encompasses all types, and self-expression is only one avenue; we can certainly also value that which is done for the enjoyment of others. It is in some way two sides of the same coin, one directed inward and one directed outward. Artistry is self-expression for the sake of yourself, and Entertainment is self-expression for the sake of others.