The cinematic hype around the movies Oppenheimer and Barbie, almost parallelly, suggests a unique perspective on the complexity of the human essence.
They both present relatively different aspects of cultural escapism, from undermining gender norms of the traditional Barbie doll to the biopic portrayal of the physicist behind the first atomic bomb.
Most audiences will pick up on the ethical messages in these storylines, as they are relevant to their own human dilemmas in the hyper-digital world. The first part of this article will interpret the ethical dilemmas in Oppenheimer, considering existing AI discussions globally, and the upcoming AI regulations.
All about the ethics
Broadly, ethics as a discipline examines the exception, while the law offers a reasonable threshold for one to act. Therefore, ethical aspects are more likely to foster a universal analysis of human values, and/or reflect the socio-cultural values of a certain society.
The movie highlights a clear division between the policymakers, setting the socio-political agenda, and the scientists providing innovative tools, thus leading to ethical conflicts. Specifically, Oppenheimer was required to develop the first atomic bomb as part of the Manhattan Project during the Second World War. Using exceptional scientific skills and a predictive vision of posthuman reality, Oppenheimer managed to develop a destructive mechanism, providing a strategic advantage to the Western Bloc, but undermining the fragile balance between humans and science.
‘Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds’
Oppenheimer’s inspiration from Hinduism Inspired by Sanskrit scholarship, the Bhagavad Gita, Oppenheimer expressed his ethical concerns about the automated capability to erase human lives. The Bhagavad Gita involves a conversation between Lord Krishna and the warrior Arjuna. Faced with fighting an army containing his relatives and friends, Arjuna is taught a philosophy that will allow him to do what needs to be done, regardless of his personal attachments and reservations.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataThis leads us to the ethical issues in this notion. Can humans use artificial tools to provide or remove divine actions such as human life? What are the ethical boundaries of the human scope during routine and crises? The question of emergency exemption is essential but complex over time, as one’s actions may have contextual legitimacy and therefore be judged by different timely lenses.
Is Oppenheimer accountable for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima?
Wars are unethical at their core, and there are special regulations that address the military and operational provisions under international law. Particularly, weapons of mass destruction have received substantial scrutiny due to their controversial nature and non-proportional harm toward human populations. In this regard, the movie presents the ethical loopholes involved with the invention of the atom bomb, particularly accountability.
As shown in the film, the brilliant physicist, alongside his team, develops the atom bomb—one of the biggest threats to national security—using quantum theories and concepts. The combination of scientific excellence, the political arms race, and a lack of transparency highlight the complex ethics of the unknown. Under immense pressure and political considerations, Oppenheimer could not have been certain of how his invention would be used by the US, once fully developed. While he hoped that the bomb would become a tool for deterrence, thus fostering global conventions, the US government decided to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.
While human generosity can bring glory and prestige, Oppenheimer’s case is complex. The ability to think outside of human essence created an ethical dilemma between Oppenheimer, the individual, ideating the machine, and the one pushing the button, the US government. One of the important questions is whether Oppenheimer is to blame for any atom-related implications. Should he have ignored his moral compass as a scientist and kept his loyalty to science? Or should he have intervened and objected to the government’s usage of his invention? The movie shows Oppenheimer’s tremendous conflict, as the one who was able to see beyond the human world, but at the same time became the creator of death and paid the price.
Oppenheimer and the arms race
Adding to the complexity of Oppenheimer’s ethical considerations, the military arms race between the US and Germany should be acknowledged. Therefore, if Oppenheimer chose to listen to his moral compass, there is a possibility that Germany would have advanced its atomic capability and possibly won the war.
Nonetheless, the movie shows how the US used the atomic bomb when Germany was no longer a substantial security threat. Is a scientist entitled to have an independent judgment under a complex and uncertain geopolitical ecosystem? The movie shows the relatively obeisant nature of Oppenheimer to the US government, and the tremendous responsibility and pressure put under his jurisdiction.
Considering the actual bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the question of Oppenheimer’s accountability deserves additional scrutiny. On the one hand, he is a scientist, creating a tool to protect a population, without full political involvement or exposure. On the other hand, his actions have led to the destruction of other populations in different contexts and revolutionized the national capability of states to deter their opponents.
Who is accountable for ChatGPT?
Considering the current AI evolution and ChatGPT’s development, some may suggest that human society is at a similar crossroads to Oppenheimer’s quantum usage. It is important to mention, however, that AI is more accessible to public usage and development than quantum, and presents tremendous accountability issues.
Like Oppenheimer, Open AI, the company behind ChatGPT, has warned against the future implications. Despite the early technical stage of generative AI, regulators and policymakers are concerned with possible abuse by malign actors and threats to vulnerable communities. Particularly, one of the biggest threats is the revolution of the human workforce and the possible removal of traditional professions.
The black box model of AI inhibits full transparency of algorithmic actions, meaning that AI-driven services and applications cannot always be fully explained. Moreover, if one developed an AI-driven application, and the user abused any loophole for nefarious purposes, the question of accountability remains.
The ethical question of OpenAI’s accountability for ChatGPT-related crimes and offenses is ambiguous. On the one hand, the company allowed the masses to use this platform without concrete limitations. But on the other hand, this is not a public organization and generative AI is yet to be regulated. Therefore, the creator cannot take into consideration all scenarios. Nonetheless, as seen in recent tech regulations and jurisdiction across Europe, the data type and user sensitivity can increase the regulatory expectations for private companies, bringing them more in line with public entities.
Conclusion
Oppenheimer holds an interesting mirror to human dilemmas of digital innovation. As much as we should advance humanity to break new scientific records, history has no mercy for controversial ethical decisions.
Critical milestones such as wars and pandemics require a universal assessment of ethical guidelines. And despite the promise of ChatGPT, we should constantly consider the ethical scope we are willing to accept in human society. Upcoming AI regulations will have a tremendous role in shaping these ethical guidelines and thresholds, potentially prohibiting any future Oppenheimer from developing AI-driven tools of mass destruction.
