***** Vol.3 Chap.6 Internal conflicts and debates *****

It was another weekly meeting with the team. Margaret, JB, and Frank were sitting around the table in Frank’s office.

Frank started the discussion.

“Well, JB, how was the programming going? Have you discovered anything interesting?” Frank asked. “Last time you reported the generative AI program could produce a new predictive model of aggression. Were you able to duplicate the results and were you able to come up with a better model?”

“No new results yet. I am rerunning the program and rechecking every aspect of the program.”

“Great. If it is alright with you folks, I have asked Mark Hymann to join the team. He will work with me as a post-doc for a couple of years to look at a few things and continue his research.”

“We need some fresh blood around here.” Margaret responded with delight.

“Mark is a great guy,” said JB emotionlessly.

“I am glad you all agree. I’ve asked him to present some of his work next time.”

After the research meeting, Frank’s mind went into overdrive and questioned the implications of their result findings. Frank trusted JB’s programming skill. There was no reason not to. But if the results were correct, then the implications of these results were significant, tantamount, and unfathomable.

He walked over to the whiteboard. After erasing everything on the board, he wrote a set of questions on the board and punctuated each of them with a big question mark.

1. Can the tendency for violent behavior of an individual be predicted by the generative AI model from his research team based on multiple segments of the genes?

2. Can the DNA sequence of an offspring be partly determined by random chance or mutation based on the parents’ DNA sequences?

3. Is it possible that our behavioral traits be partly determined by chance or mutation?

4. Can unacceptable behavioral traits be detected early in the pregnancy?

5. Can unacceptable behavioral traits be corrected early in the pregnancy?

6. Can unacceptable behavior be controlled and eventually eliminated from society?

7. Is morality or immorality a thing of chance?

8. …

Frank’s inspirations ran on and on and could hardly stop. The questions kept coming to him and he would write them down as fast as he could.

When the inspirations paused, he trudged to his desk and sank into his chair. He turned away from the whiteboard and stared at the outside of his picture window. There was no need to look at the board as those questions had been permanently etched into his mind.

This story originates from a different website. Ensure the author gets the support they deserve by reading it there.

On one hand, he felt a great relief, as if someone had put words to his inner sanctum, to his innermost fears, to his unending quest for truth and knowledge. But he felt even uneasy, even disturbed now that his fears were voiced.

What if the answers to these questions were affirmative? Could it be true that the DNA sequence of an offspring was partly determined by random chance because of a mismatch between the parents’ DNA sequences? Could it be true that the violent behavior of an offspring was solely determined by some coding in the DNA sequences?

These questions bothered Frank to no end and affirmative answers to them even more deeply disturbed him.

Frank sank lower into his chair. He stared at the campus ground outside his window. It was a windy day and the leaves are being blown around by the wind. There were little swirls of leaves and dust all around. The friendly pigeons were gone, leaving him by himself in this whole wide world.

Was it possible that one could predict, to a certain degree, the resultant DNA sequence of the offspring? If so, could that information be used to legislate about marriage between partners? Even worse, would a test of compatibility be imposed? Could such information be abused? Would that not be an invasion of privacy? Should a physician warn a couple about the impending mismatch in their union and subsequent offspring?

Frank’s head was reeling at this point.

The ‘truth’ demanded too much responsibility from him. He was not willing to bear the responsibilities and so he was not willing to accept the truth. He shook his head violently. No, this could not be true.

Denial.

As the first question subsided in his sub-consciousness, the second question surfaced. Could it be true that the violent behavior of an offspring was determined by some sequences in the DNA? He shuddered at that thought.

All his life, he heard many psychologists and famous scientists talked about the nature versus nurture. Many social psychologists insisted that violence was a learned behavior because of the improper upbringing of the child. So, violence was not a “nature” thing, but a “nurture” thing. But here, his own research results seemed to show that violence was a “nature” thing, that a person was “wired” or predetermined for violence.

What an excuse this would give to all the inmates! Frank complained to himself.

Again, Frank was baffled. The thoughts, more debates, were waning and ebbing inside of him. He wanted to trust his own research results. He had gone over his research results and they all suggested that beyond the reasonable doubt, the DNA sequences identified by the AI model could determine the behavior of a person. There were no questions about the discrimination power of the sequences.

But how could that be possible that a person’s behavior be determined by just sequences in the DNA? A person had no learning capability, no ability to adjust his/her own behavior? He could accept that might be the case for lower animals for the lack of higher consciousness. Could that be true also for human with such a well-developed higher consciousness?

Frank was getting nowhere in his own debates inside his head. The thoughts overwhelmed his conscience. And as his thoughts crystalized within him, he sank further into his chair, and further into a bottomless pit. He shook his head. This was too much for a day’s work. He shook his head again to wake himself up. He walked out of his office and did not even bother to take his briefcase home.

He had enough for the day.