Ex Machina, Empathy, and Autism

I just finished watching the film, Ex Machina, and - while I thought much of it was interesting and thought provoking - there were some parts that made me cringe. The most cringe-worthy moment for me was when the protagonist made this remark:

CALEB: It got me thinking. In a way, the joke is the best indication of AI I’ve seen in her. It’s discretely complicated. Kind of non-autistic.
NATHAN: What do you mean?
CALEB: It was a play on words, and a play on me. She could only do that with an awareness of her own mind, and also of awareness of mine.

Obviously, the writer has not seen how much autistics can love puns and such... Joking aside, though, this is a perpetuation of the old trope, stereotype, myth that autistics do not have empathy (Asperger's Syndrome, in fact, used to be called autistic psychopathy.) The idea is that if you can read someone's expression and respond accordingly, you are empathic, and therefore more human than machine (so... autistics are less human and more machine?) There's one serious problem with this, though. Take, for instance, the fact that computers are easily more capable of identifying facial expressions and responding accordingly given the right coding without being anywhere near an A.I. So... simple (relatively speaking) machines are more empathic than humans, now?

Autistics do, in fact, often have trouble identifying facial expressions, their meaning, associated emotions, and attaching those expressions to reasons, causes. This can cause confusion, certainly, and social turmoil. Autistics can also learn all those things because it's a simple case of "if x, then y." It is hardly algorithmic and more a simple set of equations. But if anyone said that understanding human behavior is easy enough for the general public, they're just plain moronic. Training, experience, and memorisation can only get anyone so far. More 'neurotypical' brains may tend to devote more faculties innately to the recognition of facial expressions and tying them accurately to a cause, but this does not remotely make the person more empathic.

Empathy is a noun that comprises both empathetic and empathic abilities. Empathetic, in its most linear form, simply means 'pertaining to understanding some aspect or aspects of someone else's place in the world at some time or place.' For instance, to identify that a person reduced to the fetal position in a ditch as aircraft fly above dropping bombs is probably terrified. Empathic, however, means more that which pertains to feeling someone else's emotions, creating a sort of sync between oneself and another, emotionally.

The A.I. in that movie, AVA, in my opinion, did not seem glaringly autistic, but since autism really only refers to a particular type of neurology that isn't always noticeable on the surface, perhaps her man-made brain would bear similarities to an autistic one if it could be mapped the same way. This wouldn't make her any more or less of a being, nor would it necessarily have a tremendous impact on if she can have empathy or not. There are also two different kinds of empathy: emotional and intellectual. Intellectual empathy is not barren in psychopaths, often regarded as lacking empathy. Emotional empathy can be abundant in autistics, often regarded as lacking empathy. What this means is that psychopaths are more likely to be able to intellectualise and analyse human behavior, and from that point of view, deduce how and why a person might act or feel a certain way given the certain circumstances at hand.

Autistics can lack in this particular type of empathy, as I know I have throughout my own life, but we're often enough strong in emotional empathy, as previously stated. Emotional empathy is being able to connect with another on an emotional level, instinctively sensing how others are feeling. Note that this does not necessarily mean there is any capability of drawing accurate conclusions as to how or why the person is feeling that way. The simple fact is that if someone is sad, we may feel sad, too. If they are agitated, we might become agitated. If they're happy, we might become happy. Even if we, personally, do not become filled with the emotion, itself, we can often enough sense it.

So, the common misconception of autistics lacking empathy is merely the observation of how autistic frequently may have difficulty drawing accurate conclusions as to why people feel the way they do, or understanding specific facial expressions or socially normative behaviors. These are things a computer can be easily and readily programmed to do, especially given something as rudimentary as a camera to draw visual data. Computers can detect lies, honesty, facial and micro-expressions, and draw conclusions far more readily and accurately than any human. Yet this is what others seem to identify as empathy, and which they see autistics as lacking. 'Lack' is frankly a trivial word to use, in the first place. A basketball player might 'lack' the ice-skating ability necessary for hockey, but does that mean they're 'lacking' as an athlete? The perceived lack of ability is only relative to some particular norm, such as necessary skills for playing hockey. But the athlete might do just well as a basketball player, and may only show deficit when attempting hockey. If they so wish to play hockey, they can just start learning the necessary skills, and if those skills don't come to them naturally or at all like they may for some others, it does not mean they are 'lacking' as an athlete, overall. (Now, I hate sports, so that was quite the analogy for me to draw up, but I think it fits and most people will get it.)

Autistics can make jokes, be emotionally and cognitively complex and layered, be plenty aware of others and others' cognizance, be empathetic on a variety of levels, and we're not robots. Also, if such a kind of empathy as being able to recognise emotions, expressions, and behaviors, and then draw conclusions from them, were a true sign of sentience, consciousness, and intelligence, then computers have been sentient, conscious, and intelligent for a while, now. But they aren't, so that must not be the actual determiner of such things. In the hierarchy of things, this film seems to place computers anywhere from somewhere below to on-par with autistics, then everyone else above autistics, and A.I. above all else.

In an interview, the director of the film, Alex Garland had this to say:

Well, I mean, basically, what I’ll tell you is that where I come from with regard to scientists is to my mind slightly different to the way they’re often perceived. It seems to me like scientists are often presented as being autistic, or having Aspergers or something a la “The Imitation Game,” which, I’m pretty sure, is not what Alan Turing was actually like anyway. So either you go that kind of route, or they’re presented as being the holders of truth, these dry truth-holders who refuse to listen to emotion. And maybe that’s actually related to the sort of “Aspergers-y” presentation.

Autistics, Asperger's included, often seem to refuse to listen to emotion because of a history of being overly emotional. Certainly, there are those of us who are actually much more analytical, objective, and rational, but this is a personality trait, not so much the outright result of autism. But autistics are just human, like anyone else, which means we have the same sorts of variance of personality and qualities as anyone else. One autistic may, in fact, be very aloof, analytical, and cold, even, but that doesn't mean we all are. Some might be very emotional, irrational, and impulsive, but that doesn't mean we all are. And then there's a whole range, spectrum, between the two poles.

My person experience is that I'm a highly emotional and empathetic individual with very high emotional intelligence, but human behavior can still baffle me, like how it can baffle anyone at certain points; I may also have difficulty discerning what certain behaviors and facial expressions mean, especially if I haven't encountered them very often. However, when I become too emotionally or sensorily overloaded, it feels like my brain 'shuts down,' and I temporarily reboot with only the bare necessities of analytical capability. This can make me seem cold, aloof, distant, and emotional vacant, but I can assure you that I'm not. In fact, my feelings can still get hurt, I can still become confused by others, and I can still try and want to be emotionally sensitive to others. It is simply a self-regulatory mechanism to allow my emotional and sensory functions to recuperate. It is partly due to others' ignorance and misunderstandings that it has taken me roughly the first 20 years of my life to learn this about myself, and it can take yet others far, far longer, if they ever reach that point. Misinformation, misunderstanding, stereotypes, and myths can all do tremendous damage, and this has been seen regularly throughout the autistic community.

So, no, the hierarchy does not have autistics at the bottom with simple, non-sentient machines, and non-autistics, or at least 'neurotypical' sorts above us. Rather, autistics and non-autistics are just as human and sentient as one another... and then A.I. remain above us all, because, damn it, they have super-computers for brains!