Human Test - developed by robots

     Can AI dominate human society? A cliché question without answers. The definition of 'AI' itself is also vague, as the boundaries of 'robot' and individual thinking systems are ambiguous. But the absence of definition cannot be the insurance for it to stay as the subordinates. Why am I pondering upon this endless question? It all started the day I failed the CAPTCHA test for the fifth time.

     It was that day, where a sudden CAPTCHA test demanded me to prove myself as a human being during login. The simple identification required me to click on all blocks containing signs. Abrupt indeed, but challenge accepted. The immediate dilemma was to whether include the block with the tiny fraction of sign or not. My mouse hovered over the block. Faltering for a moment or two, I absentmindedly clicked on the block, submitted it.

     Try again.

     Dumbfound, I clicked again. I thought I had finished clicking on all blocks with bus when the notice told me, 'Try again'.

     So that is how I was rejected from logging into my account, accused of being a robot.

"Failed to prove human. Reason: Lack of humanity"

Scene from a Korean cartoon <퓨리스틱>
https://comic.naver.com/webtoon/detail.nhn?titleId=733771&no=3&weekday=sat

     The irony is that CAPTCHA is also a robot. It is a maze designed by men to trap the non-men using a non-man method. Is it effective? Recently a 'lying robot' had slyly ticked off the CAPTCHA box without any oppression. In its first trial. This again left me dumbfound, because I read this article after my series of unsuccessful login trials.

     CAPTCHA is not the only trap designed for humans. Many other tools 'made to aid human activities' are in reality acting as oppressions. Nobody trusted a spelling checker or grammar editor like Grammarly in the past. Now students are using them to perfect their final drafts. One of my friends actually admitted that his scores are better when he writes his paper in his mother tongue, uses a translator, and uses a grammar editor. Whatever information is already in the robots, or has been incluated, now has become the wires of the cage in defining what is 'right' in human activity.

     Let us talk a little more about my friend. How could he get better grades by the assistant of the artificial assistants? I asked my other friends, who told me that his teacher always preferred the Grammarly-edited version of writing. Some suspected that it was actually used in the procedure of grading - another opinion was that his teacher may have been 'tamed' into the Grammarly-refined form essay, and since the machine helped keeping the consistency, the essay turned out to be much more 'static'. This was not just happening in his classes. Newspaper clubs would use such checkers instead of cross-proofreading. BonPatron and Duolingo, both developed by data science, have been my best friend when studying French. Google Translate was widely used to convert the English textbook into Korean version, which would have never been purchasable. 

Before I realized, the whole campus was dominated by artificial intelligence.

     Yes, machine-dependency may sound like trustworthy insurance, but maybe it is time to take a step back and think again, aren't we relying on it too hard?

The New Hunger Games

Happy Hunger Games! And may the odds be ever in your favor.

Suzanne Collins, The Hunger Games

     The modern dystopian novel Hunger Games feature the society hosting annual games which can only end by the death of 23 teenagers. The brutal game allows one to be the final winner, who is at the same time the only survivor of the event.

     The Hunger Games seem to be a violent but fair game. Every event follows the rule: the survival of the fittest. The crown goes to the most clever, strongest, and bravest of all. Those who have been trained to be the fittest, like the ones from District 1 or 2, are obviously much more suitable for the game. At least this is what the game seems to be.

     In reality, the Hunger Games is the survival of the fittest but also run by politics. The players from each district are sponsored from every action made in the game, which is unmistakably also affected by their home districts. All are filmed 24/7, and there is no way to escape the broadcast. The best way to win the game is to be loved by the sponsors, to stay fit, and cruelly deceive others.

     Describing it like a life-death matter, the games seem like a distant and barbaric matter. Yet this is not so different from what we see in our daily lives. Placing oneself before the camera has become a prevalent culture. Watching them, commenting, and sharing thoughts are common reactions to it - regardless of platform, on Instagram, Youtube, Facebook, and etc. A lot of people chose to take the road as their career - in recent years there has been a huge increase in YouTubers and celebrities. And when the broadcasting becomes forced and uncontrollable, that's when the person loses control on themselves.

     Though no one is safe from this new 'Big Brother', celebrities would be the most prone to this new Hunger Games. Respected to be consumed, every aspect of life is watched. The places they go, things they eat, words they say are observed and written down, to be consumed again later on. Indeed, it is the path they chose, yet not many end up being satisfied. A lot suffer from anxiety and panic disorder, not to mention that many end up committing suicide.

     Although the 'Big Brother' may have triggered this situation, it was not it, but the consumer's actions that led to the status quo.

     'Big Brother' only plays the role of broadcasting the games. It is the customers who look for the content, enjoy, and rate them. The fault lies in no one - there are only rights given, no responsibilities. In other words, the celebrity who exposes thyself is the sole person to undertake all the burden created.

     In Hunger Games, Katniss tries to commit suicide with Peeta when the director of games would not let both of them live. This public couple's 'fake' suicidal attempt symbols many things - it indeed may be a simple trick to gain public attention and to create the universal sympathy, but it also might have represented the will to escape the situation that they have 'voluntarily' entered.

    The Hunger Games may have not intended to devour the lives of the participants, but it is evident that the results are turning out to be fatal to at least, someone in the cycle. Yet, it is evident that real life is no Omelas - there is no need for setting new tributes to the modern Hunger Games.

Proud and Prejudiced

I could easily forgive his pride, if he had not mortified mine.

Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

     I am definitely one of the privileged. Yes, that I know for sure even by the simple fact that I go to one of the leading schools in the nation. But even without that, in general, I would agree: my life has been success-skewed.

     I remember when the admission officer from a Korean college who asked us, “after all, you guys all have experienced failure, no?” He probably would have expected us to have applied to other science high schools and failed, as a result, ended up here. I, was not the case. I have successfully achieved my dream of attending one of the so-called elite high schools (though it depends on what the person thinks), which was my primary 'dream school'. I was offended by the admission officer’s proud trial to regard my school as an alternative to the best.

     Is defining my life as success-skewed a proud action? Stating that my life is success-skewed does not mean it is failure-proof. I would say that I was prone to failure as much as anyone was. The first 'failure' that impacted me occurred in my 8th grade when I could not get into a science club in my school. I was annoyed, feeling that I was equivalent to the new members embraced to the club. I thought I deserved better, and that there was nothing that made me inferior to them. The next year I applied again, and using the famous and fancy example of Le Chatelier's principle in my interview, successfully impressing the club members (which sounds funny because what I said was more of a simple science trick). Soon I forgot what my first 'failure' felt like and never did it bother me.

     The second experience of 'failure' was similar to the prior, which happened in my 10th grade. Being new to the school and again facing the club interviews, all the students in my school seemed superior. Ironically the majority of the students were depressed, already regarding themselves as a life-long loser. But soon things got better, everything was okay again, and everyone overcame their stress.

     But then, can I address it as a failure if the recovery was so easy? Can failure be so subtle that the experience is fond enough for it to be tear-less and hopeful? On something I recovered so soon that I didn't have time to despair, can it be considered something to have affected my 'life curve'? Yet, what is a failure? Not being admitted to a 'dream college'? After all, the majority of the 7.5 billion population could not attend one of the leading universities but are successfully continuing their lives.

You never fail until you stop trying.

Albert Einstein

     Einstein's words may be valid for a long-term goal, but some opportunities are only open for certain moments. School exams cannot be re-taken. Submitted work cannot be undone. Mentally, there may be no barrier that can impact one's life to the extreme, unless one keeps trying. In reality, that may not be the case. In such terms, a true 'success' cannot exist.

     Yet, Einstein's 'stop trying' can be interpreted as being proud by one's accomplishment. His definition of fail may be what is derived out of the prejudice that one's trivial victory will be durable. In other words, Einstein may be suggesting to be humble and adventurous.

     Success is undefinable, but it can be said that success in life does not refer to failure-dodging life. It would prefer, if possible, a failure-susceptible life. This is also the reason why one shall not be proud nor prejudiced against others' lives. The true success derives from a mindset to accept challenges regardless of success.

Common liverwort, also known as Marchantia polymorpha
Picture taken in school, 2019/06/24

I don't think I'm a Kkondae, so am I one?

     A few days ago, my Facebook newsfeed showed me an interesting post.

BBC Word of the Day for September 23rd, 2019

     Below the comments were:

Never thought I'd find a nickname for my mother in law... 

It's so my mother-in-law who I don't contact anymore

Yes, elderly people claim "to have it all, done it all, seen it all..."

   
     And what struck me was that I did not realize this word was Korean, until I saw a comment explaining the origin and the Korean usage of this word. Some of the Koreans also commented below, explaining the real usage of this word. One person described it as a "slang commonly referring to teachers" while some other person tried to explain it as "a common norm around the world" and that they are "not really proud seeing this as a Korean".

     Fairly enough, BBC did a great job explaining what "Kkondae" is. Proven by the comments on the Facebook post, it is a universal feeling on the people who claim to be superior to you. What some people missed was that 'Kkondaes' don't necessarily point to the elderly, who tell you their hero stories. There are also young kkondaes, who can often be spotted in a vertical society. Everyone can be kkondae everywhere at any time.

     Neuroscience explains old kkondaes as inevitable byproduct of aging. As your brain ages, it is harder for it to make new connections between neurons, which makes it difficult to understand new concepts. As a result, it is common for people to have become conservative. But young kkondaes? Neuroscience doesn't give a good explanation for that.

     A possible reason it suggests instead, is that young kkondaes have suffered to stabilize their lives that they are not fond of the newbies who are following their steps. It is said that the feeling of loss causes them to tend to overestimate what they have done and underestimate the works of a developing person. Some similarize this to the emotions young children face when they have a sibling, since it shares the same emotion of envy towards an innocent being. By this post being universal, it can be said that the feeling is innate and may be inevitable.

     But before being so hasty to judge, is it right to label everyone believing themselves as a right person a kkondae? Quoting from BBC's definition, Kkondae is "an older person who believes they are always right (and you are always wrong)". But in some cases, believing oneself to be right and to correct someone else is needed. Confucius once said, "Those who speak of my good will are those who harm me; those who speak of my bad will are my masters. (道吾善者는 是吾賊이요 道吾惡者는 是吾師니라)" He also emphasizes the importance of introspection and reflection, but these are what are often condemned of, as being a nagging kkondae. But at the same time, introspection and reflection are the way to help set oneself to be right and to guide others to be 'right'.

     One of the comments claimed, "The moment you think you are not kkondae, you are one". So let me ask a question: I don't think I'm a Kkondae, so am I one?