With the breakthrough in Machine Learning, a world where humans and AI can interact unhindered no longer seems far-fetched. Zebra 2.0, a play by Saviana Stanescu, paints a world where this happens.

Zebra 2.0 tells the story of a young immigrant girl facing a lot of challenges who makes friends with a machine --not just any machine but an advanced level AI.

During an interview with Niki Athanasiadou, a New York-based data scientist, questions of concern were asked, and answers provided that could change your mind about the negative predictions of impending doom that would be caused by machines in the future.

Niki, please introduce yourself.

I'm a data scientist with a background in computational molecular biology, working in developing artificial intelligence for healthcare.

What's your role in the creation of the play Zebra 2.0?

I worked as a scientific consultant on the play. We worked with Saviana to create AI characters that are realistic.

How would you describe the play?

Zebra 2.0 is about positive and intended consequences. It's an unlikely story that portrays the friendship between an immigrant girl who's faced with challenges common with female immigrants, the sexist bias of the environment, and the dangers of Artificial Intelligence--an algorithm that's learning to be human.

Why did you choose to work in Artificial Intelligence?

I'm fascinated by the complex patterns involved in machine learning. My love is deeper than AI, which is a tool. For example, there is a unique pattern with which we as humans identify animals like Zebras. The ability to identify and make snappy judgments based on recognition by humans is quite different from how AI functions. Machines are more complex, at the back of what everyone sees as a smart application is a trick. Learning that trick is what fascinates me.

Do you think there's a difference between true cleverness and AI cleverness?

I believe the difference between true cleverness and AI cleverness is in pattern recognition, that is...with true cleverness, you don't need to have encountered a problem in the past to know how to solve it. It's not a criterion for solving problems for humans, but with AI, learning specific tasks is required and the fact that sometimes the ability to perform is dependent on the patterns the AI can process could be the difference. AI's can solve complex problems but they are limited--like the functions of smart television. Human cleverness is the infinite ability to adapt to the changes in the environment.Our spontaneity is what makes the difference. However, the scientists and artists are not so dissimilar in how they come about their outcomes. There's always a bit of unpredictability about the outcome of the scientist's hypothesis and the artist's expression. So while there's a difference, it's not as huge as people assume.

As a data scientist, what do you think is the goal of AI?

The goal would be to perform tasks without being told what the task is...could be interacting with strangers without sounding like a programmed machine, or solving tasks they've just encountered for the first time.

Aren't you afraid of what the future could become with the level of advancement in Machine Learning?

I'm not afraid. Sometimes, art can take the imagination of people in a counterproductive way. I think being afraid of AI is synonymous with the Frankenstein syndrome. You can discuss the negatives of a future with AI and you won't be objected to as much as you would when you discuss the possibility that AI could solve humans' problems. Why are we not discussing the possibility? Is it because we're afraid? When asked what she thought about good science and art, Nikki laughed and said,

Good science and art have to be controversial.
The kind of science and art that excites me are those at the forefront of what's happening.

So, if you're not controversial, you're most likely not at the forefront--I think."

Zebra 2.0 would be performed on November 13th at Cell Theatre, and a panel discussion would be held afterward.

Click here to find out more.

‍