Mid-Season Check-In: The Gene of AI

During what seems like the dim and distant past, at the beginning of the current anime season, I wrote the following over at Beneath the Tangles about episode one of The Gene of AI:

[It] reminded me of a book I read many years ago, Gordon Rattray Taylor’s The Biological Time Bomb. Writing after the advent of the nuclear bomb but before the digital revolution, Taylor argued that biological technologies were about to create a host of ethical problems even greater than those posed by nuclear technologies. … Taylor’s argument was not that technology is bad, nor that we should react to it in a certain way; he simply said (my paraphrase), “These are the ethical questions we will face, and it is better to answer them now rather than later, once the technology is already in our hands.” … In the same way, Gene of AI poses ethical questions (Should we be able to duplicate personalities? Should humans get computerized brain implants? etc.) without giving us “the answer”; instead, it shows us how the characters answer these questions, without glossing over either the positive or negative effects. 

Summer 2023 Anime First Impressions: The Gene of AI

Today, some weeks after I digitally penned these words, does Gene of AI maintain the same trajectory? Has it lived up to the promise of that first episode?

I would say it has. Take the most recent episode, “Tuning,” which covers two scenarios somewhat in parallel. A humanoid man plagued with insomnia from nightmares visits Dr. Sudo, who discovers that another doctor has implanted false memories in him—at the patient’s request, although he doesn’t remember it now. Meanwhile, the mother of a young piano prodigy (also humanoid) who is prone to violent outbursts also seeks out Sudo to see if he can help her son; Sudo hesitantly proposes modifying the boy’s attitude a bit.

In both cases, the questions raised are similar: To what extent is it ethical to change one’s feelings or memories directly, however good the reason might be? To what extent is the person the same person afterward? And is there any difference between programming someone digitally (currently the realm of sci-fi) and changing them through medications or therapy?

Dr. Sudo is faced with the dilemma of whether to tell the adult patient about the false memories. In the end, he doesn’t; instead, he just gives the patient the follow-up care to help him deal with the side effects. (Though I would think the other doctor should have provided it? Weird.)

The larger philosophical questions are left open in favor of a more immediately pragmatic solution. The patient and his wife seem happy with the solution, although we really don’t know what the long-term effects will be.

The mother of the piano-playing boy opts to go ahead with the attitude reprogramming. Throughout the whole lead-up to that moment, the episode alternated between the child performing beautiful musical pieces on the piano and acting out violently towards those around him. The implication was that somehow the musical genius and the aggression were two sides of the same coin, and to change one might affect the other. Would the boy lose his piano-playing ability after the operation?

Surprisingly, given how the show played with my expectations, he does not. We only see one glimpse of him saying to himself, “It feels like my piano playing is a bit different somehow.”

What we have here, as at the beginning of the season, are questions that are left open-ended. We see once again how the characters answered them, but the show gives us only enough follow-up to see a bit of life afterward. Show too much of the future, and the story becomes a moralizing fable, which so far The Gene of AI has studiously avoided.

That’s not just my takeaway. I did a very (non-)scientific study after watching episode five: reading the Crunchyroll comments, where I found gems like these.

“Really love how this series prompts you to ask questions but doesn’t plainly spell out what’s good or bad, leaving it up to their viewer’s subjective thoughts on each case.”

“It seems like modifying [the boy’s] entire personality is a bit much, but then again taking prescription meds is a similar situation as the AI pointed out. Definitely an interesting dilemma.”

“I’m glad that with Yuta they didn’t just make it where his entire life improves but oh boo-hoo his piano playing is total garbage suddenly. Like he says he thinks it may sound different, maybe.”

“The ability to alter people’s memories and personalities can be beneficial. But it’s also deeply disturbing and isn’t something I see people agreeing with any time soon.”

“The piano kid… considering what they did, can we really and truly say it’s still him after that?”

Comments from The Gene of AI episode five, “Tuning”

As this kind of feedback indicates, the show continues to display ethical problems related to AI and biotechnology, but leaving the stories open-ended enough that they become opportunities for reflection rather than Aesop’s fables or parables. And they’re doing so effectively, as the viewers are reflecting on these questions and trying to form their own conclusions.

Taylor’s book is still prescient and still worth reading, but it didn’t effect the sea change in the world that he wanted. If only he’d had an anime to work with! After all, this is one of the reasons I love anime and manga (and blog about them): they raise excellent food for thought!

Postscript: You might have better luck checking out The Biological Time Bomb from your local library, but if you do purchase it through from Amazon via this blogpost, you’ll be supporting this very happy Cat!