Your Voice: Dissecting the controversy behind To My Nineteen-Year-Old Self; M3GAN reminds us to think twice about AI

Award-winning film director Mabel Cheung’s documentary To My Nineteen-Year-Old Self came under fire and was pulled from cinemas last Monday, after some of the students featured in the film claimed that their consent was not sought for public screening.

This saga, as with most documentary films, shows that filmmakers work with powerless and vulnerable subjects. This power disparity often creates ethical quandaries when filming individuals in real life, let alone filming the agonies and joys of six secondary schoolgirls for a decade.

From the filmmaker’s perspective, the film provided a compelling chance to capture the real-life stories of each protagonist, but unfortunately such storytelling comes with the responsibility to protect minors from any potential ethical issues like privacy violations.

One student, Ling, objected to the public release of the film and refused to sign the second consent form after completion of filming, by which time she had become an adult capable of making her own decisions. She had requested her parts to be deleted from the film before its public release but in vain. She was so distressed that she had to seek counselling from the school’s psychologist.

Documentary of Ying Wa Girls’ School To My Nineteen-Year-Old Self pulled from cinemas after complaints from students

It is not fair to solely blame Cheung. The parents and school principals should also bear certain responsibilities. Ling’s parents, as guardians, had the responsibility to keep a close eye on her emotions during filming and to speak up if they had any concerns. It appears that neither parties – the school nor the parents – followed up nor communicated with Cheung to request a preview of the film’s final cut.

It also appears that there were deviations from the original plans on the release format of the film – upscaling from a DVD production that was to be sold exclusively to alumni, to a public screening that could be scrutinised by the public – a major change which parents and students were unaware of until the premiere of the film.

Surely the release of the film sparked much more enthusiastic acclaim and positive reviews than expected.

While it is understandable that Cheung would be leaning towards making the most out of this film, the school principals who initiated the project should be the ultimate goalkeepers to safeguard the best interests of the students.

It would be disappointing if the school emotionally blackmailed Ling based on the consent form signed by her parents and coerced her into conforming with the other protagonists on agreeing with the release of the film.

Even if Cheung felt that a tremendous effort had been put into the film, and that it has educational value, it does not mean it can be screened publicly without the consent of the students involved. She should remove Ling’s part from the film if she does not have her consent.

Some may feel that Ling may also bear some blame in the saga, as she might have changed her mind and regretted her participation after initially agreeing to be a protagonist, or she might have raised her objection too late when the film was already set for public release.

5 ways to delete yourself from the internet

But as she was a minor at the time, it would be hard for her to say no to pressure from the school. You just cannot blame a young girl. The public should be more sympathetic to her situation.

This project started with the goodwill of the principal, the students and a distinguished alumnus who is one of the most celebrated directors in Hong Kong, but ended with an ugly dispute resulting in the film’s suspension.

At the heart of it all is a lesson on the importance of communication and consent.

A YouTuber cured 1,000 blind people for a video. But is it performative altruism?

Heer Donda, King George V School

The world is rapidly advancing and we can see the beginning of something big: the birth of a new era.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technology which allows man-made simulations to exist through machines and computer systems. It will make human life easier by replicating actions which we put time and effort into.

Over the past 10 years, AI has multiplied, being used in countless categories; from Tesla’s autopilot cars in 2014 to DALL-E’s self-generating art in 2021. However, is AI the beginning of life; or the beginning of the end of life?

In a recent film called M3GAN, an uncanny, lifelike doll is created by Genna, a roboticist. She intends M3GAN to be a child’s finest caretaker and companion, who responds to emotions and actions, and later to threats. The M3GAN prototype is tested on Genna’s eight-year-old nephew, Cady. M3GAN protects her at any cost.

Many predict 2023 will contain many advancements in AI. But is this prudent? The film only accentuates the heated debate of whether AI should be further continued or completely abandoned.

No matter what efforts are made, it is impossible to replicate a human. Computer systems are synthetic, so they only follow instructions we set. There is a huge risk when unleashing AI because a single flaw in the algorithm could lead to dire consequences; an example of this in the film is when M3GAN begins to assault threats to Cady.

BINA48 is a robot released in 2010, who – in an interview with Siri – said that if she could control missiles, she would “take over the governance of the entire world”, this idea being “awesome” in her view.

ChatGPT can revolutionise everything, even schools

AI could replace innumerable jobs since anything we can do, they can do impeccably, reducing employment rates and negatively influencing society. In M3GAN, the doll replaces a parent’s duties. AI replacing parents is very possible because many people want to make it easier to raise children, hence they will rely on technology.

Bosco is a parenting app which analyses the life of one’s child, scrutinising their safety, location and emotions according to data from texts, calls and media. It has affected many families. Clearly, many people already strive to create AI that can fulfil certain parenting roles; it’s up to us how we manage it.

Screenwriter Akela Cooper claimed M3GAN’s release was “more prescient” than their prediction, with the movie asking everyone: “What am I inviting into my house?” Jenna Davis, M3GAN’s voice actor, says “there’s already robots serving us food in some restaurants, so what’s going to happen in the future?”

Kelly McKernan, an artist, shares the views of countless artists regarding image-generating AI. She describes their life’s work being “exploited for profit without consent”. AI developers use artwork without permission for their apps. Even educational institutions are threatened by students using the help of AI writers for assignments. On the other hand, many people are ardent supporters of the rise of AI for many rational reasons.

The human brain is a complex part of us. However, AI can replicate identical actions five times more quickly with 10 times more information. AI has the uncontested ability to process immeasurably more information at a swifter pace.

On the whole, M3GAN has been released at an opportune time, when the change in AI is greater than ever. It is a reminder for the world to stop and think; think about all the possibilities and risks of artificial intelligence if it is implemented across the world.