One of the most fascinating things I learned from Ghost in the Machine is the deep, somewhat dark historical lineage of Artificial Intelligence. It was surprising to see how the ambition to artificially “improve” humanity started with early, troubling concepts of selective reproduction long before it evolved into silicon and code. I was also deeply unsettled by the tight-knit interconnectedness of the key figures driving today’s AI revolution; this small group, whose ideologies I fundamentally disagree with, is now dictating the micro-details of our futures.
However, what truly captured my attention was the realization of how much AI development mimics human cognitive growth. When OpenAI leadership admitted they cannot guarantee the AI will be 100% truthful, but rather that it will eventually output truth more often as it learns, it clicked for me. Just like humans who learn, make mistakes, and grow smarter over time, AI is following the exact same evolutionary curve. But this sparked a mind-boggling realization: Humanity evolved, got smart enough, and created AI. If AI is following this same trajectory of getting exponentially smarter, what will it create once it reaches a certain point of intelligence? Right now, every piece of data AI consumes comes from us as humans. But I honestly cannot fathom what the world will look like once it crosses that critical threshold of intelligence. That unknown future is both incredibly fascinating and deeply terrifying.
This directly connects to our class discussions on tech ethics and the myth of neutrality. In the course, we learned that AI systems are heavily reliant on biased databases and do not inherently possess “pure” intentions. The film perfectly confirmed this reality by exposing how these models are essentially built for a specific, privileged demographic while actively exploiting and harming others. Seeing the unseen labor and exploitation of workers in Africa to train these models reinforced the classroom concept that AI is built on deeply flawed, biased foundations.
I have always been fascinated by AI’s rapid growth and its ability to execute complex tasks flawlessly. I see its massive potential and I genuinely like the core concept of it. However, based on what I learned, I will change how I interact with it. In my own technical and academic work, I will no longer passively consume these tools. I will actively use AI to enhance my productivity, but I will make a conscious, critical effort to treat it strictly as a utility. I will constantly question the underlying biases of the software I use, ensuring I leverage the technology without surrendering to the flawed ideologies of the few people who control it.
Based on the film’s revelations and the philosophical questions it raised, I strongly believe our course should dedicate a future module to “Algorithmic Colonization and the Post-AI Horizon.” We need to explore how diverse cultures can regulate their own AI systems so our future isn’t programmed by a homogeneous group. Furthermore, we need to dedicate classroom time to theorizing what happens to human purpose and data systems once AI surpasses the need for human input entirely.
Provide Feedback