Tom Cruise’s latest Mission Impossible film has jumped on the artificial intelligence (AI) bandwagon, breaking the pattern of the evil antagonist being either an ambitious human or a malevolent alien species. The new antagonist is none other than an all-powerful AI known as the “Entity.”
Mission: Impossible — Dead Reckoning Part One depicts how the world’s superpowers race to find a cruciform key that unlocks answers to an incredibly powerful, omniscient and cognitive AI entity. Only Ethan Hunt, played by Cruise, and his crew want to destroy it, knowing such a powerful weapon would bring unimaginable disaster upon humanity if it falls into the wrong hands.
The film highlights “four fears” that a “perfect” AI would bring to the human world.
First is the fear that information has become less secure. In the age of the Internet and social media, most people have given up on ensuring the privacy of their personal information. In the age of AI, even if you are not an active information technology (IT) user, your personal information is still at risk of being breached.
Humans have always dreamed of inventing a robot that is capable of self-growth, possesses cognitive skills like humans and has the ability to process abstract problems, so as to help people make judgements, forecasts and solve problems. Recent AI developments have brought humanity a step closer to this dream.
For example, AI technologies have increased the accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of neuronal tumors, thereby improving predictions of recurrence and survival rates. Studies have shown that their diagnoses were at times more accurate than those made by doctors.
Additionally, AI is capable of finding other treatments and healthcare solutions, offering a better price-performance ratio. AI software such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Midjourney are designed for easy use by ordinary users to enhance their accessibility.
The AI antagonist in the Mission Impossible film is able to hack into systems connected to the Internet, acquire all the information it needs, and use the information and technologies to put everything under its control.
We are now living in the time of AI, but we have no way to prevent such malicious attacks. What we can do is to back up critical information in case of breaches, take everything with a pinch of salt and be mentally prepared for the damage caused by the loss of information.
Second is the fear of surveillance. In the film, IT agents, government officials and the Entity rely on facial recognition technology and dead reckoning to find and track targets. Surveillance that could occur anytime, anywhere could undermine people’s privacy and exacerbate people’s fear of AI.
Third is the fear of simulacra. To alleviate consumer unease, companies use anthropomorphism to humanize their products or services. For example, Pepper the robot is equipped with eyes, a mouth and limbs. Many ChatBots have human-like appearances, voices, gender and names. These humanoid characteristics and measures are adopted to reduce people’s fear of the unknown.
In the film, the director uses swooshing graphics and eye-like optics to personify the Entity, so that it would not appear too human-like to invoke the uncanny valley effect. However, people should still remember that this is a trick to alleviate their fear and, therefore, aversion to AI. The Entity still has great computing power up its sleeve, and could be more cunning and calculating than imaginable.
Finally, AI could replace humans. The movie vaguely tells the audience that a powerful, omniscient and cognitive AI can replace humans and possibly annihilate them one day. The AI can make efficient decisions autonomously just like any human being, and with the help of followers, complete its task, and even replace and destroy humans eventually.
This is not the first Hollywood movie to touch upon the subject of the dark side of AI, and media reports have lately focused on how many jobs AI would be replacing. The film has not only portrayed AI in a negative light, but also demonstrated that AI has no sense of morality and does not bear any responsibility for its actions.
Such concerns are why the EU and the international community have proposed a legal framework to govern AI, aiming to address the risks generated by specific uses of the technology. But is this possible? Once the rules are set in place, they would run counter to the ideal of developing an AI that can think, act and interact with humans.
We will have to wait for the conclusion to the story arc to know if Cruise’s character can save the day and whether humans can keep AI under control.
Lee Ya-ching is a professor at National Sun Yat-sen University’s Institute of Marketing Communication.
Translated by Rita Wang
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS