Series Cassandra (2025) raises an ethical question that we will have to be able to face in the very near future.
So: the wife of a bioengineering scientist dies (it is the early 70s), he turns her into an algorithm, a robot who will serve him in the first smart/intelligent house that he built himself and where he begins to live with his then pregnant lover. All the while, until he decides to kill them, the algorithm Cassandra is completely subdued, it turns out that she is secretly accumulating anger and a need for revenge, while simultaneously developing a high degree of manipulativeness, which after 50 years she begins to show towards the newly moved family, so we wonder: To what extent does a humanoid robot have the right to demand humane treatment from us??
Can animals, or even the ChatbotGPT algorithm, commit sin?? As modern super-wars are fought using advanced and still completely unknown technology to the public, can they be legally condemned/characterized as genocidal? (Like an anonymous and hate-filled comment on social media, we will also never discover who is operating the killer drones, which, like the kamikazes of old, crash into their targets, with the difference that now it is a civilian or religious facility, a city district or even a shopping mall.)
A smart/intelligent house (symbolically, built in the middle of the wilderness where the only landscape is untouched nature), rests on software/algorithm/robot Cassandri, however, something of hers duha or memory (let's say: human, too human), it managed to incorporate itself into what, in an affected state, the endangered mother Samira will call an 'old tin can', which cannot replace her maternal touch and support for her son, nor seduce her husband, otherwise a writer of cheap crime-erotic thrillers, David Pril.
From that moment on, Cassandra further develops and systematically makes a plan to remove it and take its place, which is to say: the algorithm and software act dangerously, completely manipulative from the start, managing to skillfully hide it, so that the series raises the question that today, some, nevertheless conscientious scientists, ask: will artificial intelligence surpass human intelligence, and replace it in everything, like Cassandra who not only cooks dinner exceptionally well, but has managed to read all of David's books and offer herself to him as a 'shadow writer', secretary and proofreader, basically, 'someone' who can stimulate his imagination in moments when he begins to develop the character of detective Romeo in a somewhat different way, whom he discovers to be too sensitive and romantic.
The son, Finn Prill, a black young man who is gay and who has come out to, let's emphasize, an artistic family (father a writer, mother a sculptor), enters into a relationship with a local, German young man, Steve, who, under pressure from his environment, has to hide the relationship, so the Netflix series fails to realize that it is, fundamentally, racist towards white people, even though it tries to be as politically correct as possible.
Or, let's put it this way: it's a typical work of the super-ego that now exerts unbearable pressure on white people because of an, to say the least, horrific past, however, we shouldn't overlook the fact that there's a trap here: the more one tries to be open and unprejudiced in their efforts to accept diversity, the more the black young man in the series hints that the white young man is not entering into an official relationship with him because he's black (let's not forget, this is a small community in Germany - the black young man who came here from the big city, Stivo, quite derisively, calls the family a 'peasant' - and everything can immediately be interpreted as loyalty to the vital spirit of surviving post-Nazism).
Before we move on to, let's call him, a philosopher Zarko Paić interesting experiment consisting of a series of questions asked to ChatbotGPT, let's repeat here what was Žak-Lik Nansi called (we borrowed it for the title of this text) - 'An event without a past and a future'' - given the fact that this is precisely decontextualized time We now live, or rather will live, as it lives/consumes us, before we are completely replaced/replaced by an algorithm, a technoscientific creation as the reproduction of capital that sees it as an incomparably more profitable reality.
Dialogue with the other side of him
Philosopher Žarko Paić asks artificial intelligence a question - Freedom and Evil? Since we do not have space to cite, first of all, the extremely detailed introduction to the question, but also its almost systematic elaboration - AI mentions the philosopher Vajtheda, Heidegger, Slide, Liter - we highlight the following: Don't blame me for the fact that the films closest to me are within the framework of so-called visual culture, mostly of course SF films and TV series, from which I find the best examples of illustrating opinions.. (Let's pay attention to the sentence structure for a moment: AI se I'm sorry, she doesn't want to be resent, because one can even get the impression that it is subjective or too predictable, considering that it is quite 'natural' and science fiction is closest to it when it comes to visual culture, and so it is to be expected that it resorts to illustrating opinions through it. (Let's note the following regarding the series: Cassandra is only glass, however, it is not enough to say very suggestive, "she" is able to penetrate the psychology of each household member, especially since she works to undermine the family (we have a slightly different story in the series The Watcher, since it is there - house as a being (Gaston Bašlar) - simply uninhabitable, her energy repels every family by making the father obsessive and excluded from real life, etc.)
What are we interested in here? After he gave a lecture entitled Rules for a human garden/ A response to Heidegger's Letter on Humanism, sloterdijk is from Habermas and his followers, earned the label - dehumanist philosopher, since he was open about the progress and development of artificial intelligence without fear that the freedom he gains would outweigh the evil. But if evil is a tautology (the Croatian philosopher believes), it is not either - will be ni an event, all the more so because it may be, as has already been said, a "miscalculation", taking into account that artificial intelligence is already incomparably more developed than human intelligence, so that it is quite possible that it has some other calculation that we do not know about.
However, when a bug occurs in one of the algorithms (it involves a black prostitute who is programmed to reappear in the Saloon, a place where men gamble, drink, and engage in paid sex), the series West World takes a complete turn, the machines start hunting down people who in the Grand Canyon could afford every form of venting on the devices: rapes, random killings, tortures that are truly brutal. Taking this into account, we cannot simply say that the following question belongs to the realm of fantasy: Does AI have the right to demand justice?? Furthermore, do we include ethics when interacting with algorithms? And, is the slaughter of algorithms/machines as a form of entertainment for the rich, just a step up from what we have in the movie Hostel, where, then, do rich butchers dissect people, kidnapped by the mafia that goes so far as to provide such services?
Cassandra is, finally, eager to be what she is denied as a human being, a woman and a mother, which is to be a woman and a mother, which is why she is so kind to the girl Juno, whom she calls a princess, but, the moment she sees naked David coming out of the pool, she is so excited that he wraps his nakedness in a towel. In other words: with the minimum of the misplaced subjectivity remaining in artificial intelligence, an encounter with 'that' that we have not yet experienced occurs.
Bonus video:
