The horror film M3gan – and its eponymous demon doll – wowed critics and packed theaters, earning $30.4m in its opening weekend. The trailer for the film, which went viral last fall for a scene showing the robot stopping mid-kill to try out a TikTok dance, proved that M3gan is a villain made for memes. But it’s not all bloodthirsty fun: the film raises questions about parenting and digitized playtime.
Quick summary with mild spoilers: M3gan is a robot doll that can do almost anything (walk, talk, spin, kill). It was created by Gemma (Alison Williams), a work-obsessed roboticist who suddenly has to care for her orphaned niece Caddy. At first, the M3gan is a hit: Gemma’s bosses at a Hasbro-style toy company tout her as the Tesla of dolls. She and Cady become inseparable. Then the M3gan gets too smart.
Evil toys have earned their place in the horror canon, from The Twilight Zone’s Talking Tina baby doll to Chucky, the action figure possessed by the soul of a serial killer. As robot ethicists continue to debate how humans should interact with upcoming AI companions (Should we have sex with them? Should we let them raise our children?), M3gan feels especially timely.
But what do robot ethicists do for M3gan? Katie Darling, a leading expert on tech ethics and a researcher at the MIT Media Lab, says the world is a world away from a real-life version of the doll.
“I don’t think we’ll have anything that’s at this level of advanced AI in the next decade or two,” she said. “People have completely skewed the expectations of what robotics can do at this point, thanks to movies like this.”
However, Darling believes that people need to start questioning the way toy robots will be marketed and sold. “I’m not concerned about what I saw in the trailer happening in real life — the AI getting too smart and not listening to commands,” Darling said. “I’m concerned about whether AI should be used to replace human capabilities in relationships, and the answer is no.”
Machines don’t think or act like humans, Darling said. Of course, there are some types of robot nannies, like the iPall, a 3-foot-tall companion that can sing, dance, answer questions and, according to its creators, keep kids occupied for “a few hours” while their parents are away. (Unlike the M3gan, it can’t push school bullies in front of moving cars.)
But caring doesn’t just mean supervision: there’s an emotional aspect to raising children that Darling says only humans are capable of. “Robots can be used as a supplement, as we would use a pet or a companion — not directly replace a relationship that is human,” Darling said.
Ronnie Bogani, an artificial intelligence ethicist and children’s rights lawyer, believes robot caretakers could “completely change the family dynamic.” For example: what if a child asks to go to the store at night, a parent refuses, and then a robot nanny shoots evidence of the nice weather and lack of crime outside? “If a robot gives empirical evidence that a parent’s rules are wrong, how long does that have to happen to an adult before they get tired of being embarrassed by a toaster?” Bogani asks.
Darling also worries about how businesses can exploit a child’s attachment to their robot friends. “If a child has a relationship with that type of doll, corporate capitalism can hold that relationship hostage,” she said. “They could say, ‘Now we’re doing a software upgrade to the robot that costs $10,000,’ and that stops access if you don’t pay that subscription.” There are so many ways companies can manipulate people with robots.”
Dancers dressed as the robot perform on the black carpet during the M3gan premiere in Los Angeles. Photo: Jim Ruymen/UPI/REX/Shutterstock
Bogani added that robots can control children through their adolescence. It will be much harder for a teenager to have a rebellious phase if a walking, talking device is watching their every move. “Breaking laws and civil disobedience is part of growing up,” he said. “At what point is a robot nanny required to report a child?”
While M3gan’s signature look (blonde curls, khaki dress, plaid scarf) will undoubtedly become a Halloween staple, many ethicists don’t believe robots should look like humans. “One of my pet peeves is that we try to make them look human,” Darling said. “There are so many other ways to create a robotic design that is compelling but doesn’t create false expectations that the robot will behave like a human.”
Robotics can take advantage of animators’ tricks to infuse human emotions into anthropomorphic figures. “I hate that we’re just defaulting to the human form for marketing purposes,” Darling said. And why should robot nannies engage in maternal tropes for female caregivers? “Customers might want a Mary Poppins robot to take care of their kids, but that doesn’t even work because the robot won’t behave like Mary Poppins,” she added.
Bogani agrees that robots should not have humanoid features or names. And he thinks that in the future, if they are used for childcare or the government, there should be a standard color to denote a separate class of robots equipped with greater data protection. “I don’t know why a robot should have a head,” he said. “Look people: we are terribly bad product design. Why are we copying it with robots?”
It’s easy to see why the creators of the M3gan movie copied the appearance of a young girl with a young age for their robot: it’s endlessly creepy. But while the morality tale of artificial intelligence may drive audiences crazy today, there will certainly be a market for (hopefully law-abiding) robot helpers.
“It takes a village to raise a child, and we’re entering the age of a digital village,” Bogani said. “This technology is phenomenal and it’s so amazing, but without the right protection it can also be dangerous.”
Add Comment