(1)
|
| 根莖式賽博格：與AI共處生態系的方法 |
| Rhizomized cyborg: Method of co-existing with AI in the Ecosystem |
 |
| 作者 |
黃建宏 |
| Author |
Chien-Hung Huang |
| 關鍵詞 |
人工智能、
新世紀福音戰士、
德勒茲、
瓜達里、
賽博格、
心體
|
| Keywords |
AI,
Evangelian,
Deleuze,
Guattari,
cyborg,
mindware
|
| 摘要 |
就《AI 化的青少年：分裂當代下的EVA 1995》一文，對於《EVA》作為早期AI 賽伯格的科幻文本進行討論，我們既訝異於庵野秀明能夠在當時進行多種AI 與AI 賽伯格的想像，也在敘事中捕捉到AI 與青少年之間可能的糾纏關係，這些關係在當時或許仍被框限在過度擬人化的情感運作中，但當我們今天對數位與網路時代的賽伯格型態越來越具體時，這個當時可能在無意識底下呈現出來的賽博格式糾纏關係，或許早就是一種由想像力所啟動的預判。上述論文的工作呈現出技術與技術無產者在歷史中不斷重複的殖性關係，技術無產者不是被技術排拒的人，而是作為技術運作的「原料」，而將技術生產出的「利益」歸屬到技術支配者。基於這樣的歷史經驗，在今天面對更為加速的AI 發展，我們應該更有意識地介入到技術開發過程，換言之，更為複雜而廣泛的人類問題必須在技術開拉過程即被考慮，這甚至是一種技術平權與生態平權的必要權利。
我們因而關注到幾個命題，首先是「青春期」作為一種具有協商空間的「前個體狀態」，所以必須相對地對大企業與國家所挹注的AI 單向性發展保持警覺；第二是青少年在面對大數據與AI發展所必要的認知，特別是通過天然資源的過度開發、對於個體資料的無償存取使用，甚至跨區域形成開採人類生物資料與心智資料的行星級礦區，新科技如何能改變他們（無產者）在歷史發展中的權力關係？第三，通過三木清（Miki Kiyoshi）、德勒茲（Gilles Deleuze）與瓜達里（Félix Guattari）重新理解技術的生態關係，分別是生命時間與系統網絡，藉由生態關係理解賽伯格的新型態；第四，若AI 能夠成為世界與事物積層中的縫隙製造者，意即社會與網絡中的調解者，就可能將行動推進到技術媒介環境中的後人類（數位賽伯格或AI 賽伯格）表演性；第五，調節運息是民主社會中化解殖性暴力的必要作為，「渾沌運息」作為對抗法西斯態（潛殖所造就的政勢）的化殖操作。
技術，既非工具也不是輔具，而是事物或物質沿著生命與生活的延展所生成的經驗，不只是人自身的存在總是連結著技術，同時，技術自身就是生命與生活所集置的經驗（三木清／柳宗悅）。運息，是跨越不同生態層的「深度」行動，不是連結集置的個體化事件，而是穿越各種積層、隔膜的深度影響，一種並不簡化渾沌狀態，而是藉渾沌之力進行的穿越行動（德勒茲&瓜達里）。也是在這些生成「調解者—縫隙」的概念與方法中，我們捕捉到朝向環境的「擴延」與「預測」就是其中的心智動力，意即安迪．克拉克以著「賽伯格式心智」（心體）而論述的擴延和預測性。所以，我們將在本文中試圖以「心體」（mindware）與上述三種技術想像間可能的思想聯繫作為論述主題，並藉此進入到藝術與人工智能之間的深刻連結。 |
| Abstract |
Discussing the text “AI Enabled Adolscence: EVA 1995 in a Schizophrenic present,” which examines Neon Genesis Evangelion (EVA) as an early sciencefiction text on AI cyborgs, we are not only astonished by Hideaki Anno’s ability at the time to envision various modalities of AI and AI cyborgs, but we also capture the potential entanglements between AI and teenagers within the narrative. While these relationships might have still been bounded within overanthropomorphized emotional dynamics back then, as our understanding of cyborg configurations in today's digital and network era becomes increasingly concrete, this cyborgian entanglement—perhaps rendered unconsciously at the time—might well have been an anticipation sparked by imagination. The work of the aforementioned paper highlights the historical, repeatedly recurring colonial relation between technology and the “techno-proletariat.” The technoproletariat are not those excluded from technology, but rather those serving as the "raw materials" for technological operation, while the “profits” generated by technology accrue to the technological dominators. Based on this historical experience, as we face the further accelerated development of AI today, we should intervene in the technological development process with awareness. In other words, more complex and extensive human issues must be taken into account right at the stage of technological development; this is even a necessary right for technological and ecological equity.
We thus focus on several propositions. Firstly, adolescence as a “preindividual state” with negotiable space, which requires us to remain relatively vigilant against the monolithic development of AI backed by big companies and nations. Secondly, the necessary cognition for youth facing big data and AI development—particularly regarding how new technologies can alter their (the proletariat's) power relationship in historical development amidst the overexploitation of natural resources, the uncompensated access and use of individual data, and even the planetary-scale mining zones extracting human biological and cognitive data. Thirdly, re-understanding the ecological relations of technology through Kiyoshi Miki and Félix Guattari, specifically regarding life-time and system networks, thereby comprehending new configurations of the cyborg through ecological relations. Then, if AI can act as a "differentiator" within the layered strata of the world and things—that is, a mediator within society and networks—it becomes possible to advance action toward the performativity of the posthuman (digital cyborg or AI cyborg) in medium environments. Finally, regulating respiration/operation as a necessary action to resolve colonial violence in democratic societies, where "chaosmose" serves as a decolonizing operation against fascisoïd (the political stance/situation formed by para-colonization).
Technology is neither a mere tool nor an auxiliary device; rather, it is an experience generated along the extension of life and living through things. Not only is human existence itself always connected to technology, but technology itself is the accumulated experience assembled by life and living (Kiyoshi Miki/Soetsu Yanagi). Chaosmose is a “deep” action that crosses different ecological layers—it is not an individualizing event of connection and assembly, but a deep-reaching impact that traverses various strata and membranes, an action of traversal powered by chaos rather than simplifying the chaotic situation (Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari). It is precisely within these concepts and methods generating the “mediator” that we realize the “extension” and “prediction” toward the environment are launched by the dynamics of mind—namely, the extension and predictive nature articulated by Andy Clark regarding the “cyborg mind” (mindware). Therefore, in this writing, we attempt to take the potential conceptual linkages between “mindware” and the aforementioned technological imaginations as our central narrative theme, thereby entering into the deep connection between art and AI. |
|
|
|
