In this blog post, based on the movie Ghost in the Shell, we explore the possibility of artificial intelligence evolving into a living being and its implications.
While the definition of a living being remains highly debated, broadly speaking, a living being is often defined as an entity capable of responding to its external environment, adapting to it, and reproducing. This criterion may seem relatively simple, yet it provides a useful framework for distinguishing familiar living things from inanimate objects around us. If you show an elementary school student a rock picked up on the street and a flower planted in a pot, and ask which is a living thing, most would choose the flower. This is because such criteria are already inherent and learned within our thinking.
The concept of life has evolved over time. Before Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution emerged less than 200 years ago, humanity had never deeply contemplated the evolution of living things. However, Darwin’s theory, which appeared in the mid-1800s, fundamentally changed perspectives on life and subsequently exerted a profound influence beyond biology, extending into philosophy and sociology.
Despite its short runtime of just over 80 minutes, the film Ghost in the Shell foreshadows another major change to come in the future, much like how Darwin’s theory of evolution shook the existing concepts of life. Humans have long strived to mimic nature, and after years of research and experimentation, succeeded in inventing technologies like the airplane. Research into ‘artificial intelligence’—one of the ultimate goals of these efforts, intended to replace human intelligence—has not yet reached completion. However, compared to a decade ago, it has achieved remarkable progress. Set against a backdrop of a society where AI has advanced to a high degree, the film poses the question: what will happen when objects created by humans become capable of independent thought and causing change?
In the future, humans equipped with electronic brains implanted in their heads for efficiency emerge, while other humans exploit these electronic brains to manipulate them or inject false information. As seen in the film with the janitor whose memories were manipulated, if a human—who defines and acknowledges themselves through interaction with their surroundings and their own memories—has their memories altered and their actions controlled by programming, that entity may lose the right to be called ‘human’. Director Mamoru Oshii focuses on the ‘unpredictability’ that increasingly complex and sophisticated technology inevitably carries, pointing out potential problems in future society while hinting at the possibility of new ‘lifeforms’ emerging.
Is there no way to prevent such unexpected ‘new lifeforms’ in advance? Programming often uses the term ‘bug,’ meaning an outcome the author did not anticipate. For example, predicting and preparing for errors like dividing a number by zero is essential for creating stable programs. However, today’s programs are growing increasingly complex, and predicting every potential error in artificial intelligence programs is becoming ever more difficult. Unpredictable errors can lead to unknown consequences, and as these issues accumulate, there is a possibility that programs ‘beyond human control’ could emerge. This is precisely the entity portrayed as the ‘Puppeteer’ in the film.
This film was adapted from an existing comic, and the original creator likely possessed a fundamental understanding of programming. While the public generally perceives computer programs as characterized by accuracy and speed, this work starkly exposes the fatal flaws and potential problems inherent within programs. Later films like Gattaca and AI also warn of the dangers of genetic manipulation or cloned humans, but Ghost in the Shell poses more fundamental questions about the limitations of ‘cutting-edge technology’ and the new paradigm of life forms it could engender.
The network, developed to make human life more convenient, remains a space where vast amounts of data and programs are transmitted. In just a few decades, we’ve reached a point where a computer alone can connect us to the entire world. Ultimately, we may fully understand the principles of the human brain and develop programs based on those principles. That is, the moment will arrive when we create, with our own hands, beings possessing the most prominent characteristics of humanity: the ability to think and be creative. Such a program would learn and adapt on its own to existing vaccines or containment devices. As a result, it might become an ‘intelligent program’ that exists eternally within the network, one that no countermeasure could ever completely stop. Just as existing life forms grow through interaction with their external environment, reproduce by mixing genes, and eventually disappear in a cyclical structure, if programs within the network combine core information to give birth to new programs and then vanish, what criteria would we use to distinguish programs from humans at that point?
Personally, I believe the situation foreshadowed in movies could actually occur in the distant future. Furthermore, there is the possibility that programs created by humans could refuse commands, become self-aware, and be recognized as beings equal to humans. However, at the current stage, any assertion must be cautious. Even though technology could be misused in unexpected ways and cause harm, the effort to satisfy human intellectual curiosity will not cease. Artificial intelligence carries potential risks, but that is still a matter for the distant future. The world depicted in the film presents problems unimaginable by today’s standards, yet I believe humanity must continue advancing science and technology, just as it always has.
The girl created by the fusion of the Puppeteer and the Major at the film’s end can certainly be recognized as a ‘living being’ in terms of her diversity. While her initial appearance would be quite shocking, we would eventually adapt and find ways to coexist with her. The film depicts crimes and phenomena difficult to predict today, but I don’t think we need to fear them. Humans in the distant future will adapt to new environments and conditions, just as we do today, and find ways to coexist with new life forms. However, I believe the attitude of acknowledging and accepting these ‘mutations’ is absolutely essential for human progress.
