These are some of the things that keep me up at night...
How do we create a new species of sentient beings? What are we willing to risk?If the human race is here due to both “will to power” and mistakes in behaviour and replication of our genes then surely we must create a being capable of making and learning from mistakes.
Experience may be a harsh mistress but she is also the best mistress. In order to create intelligent beings capable of moral judgement we would need to enable them to make errors of judgement and action, about which they could feel remorse.
(
I, Robot: copyright Twentieth Century Fox)
We would need them to be capable of evil against each other and human beings:
Who would be willing to invest in the creation of such beings?Obviously people will not wish to create beings that can make mistakes (e.g. robots making errors whilst flying a plane) so the ever present drive for perfection will see many of the mistakes wiped out. However, perfection can only ever be sought and never attained. In our quest we will inevitably create beings that make and replicate errors -many of which we will no doubt wish to kill off.
Robot Wars:Robot wars with humans may then be an inevitable by-product of our desire to go further and touch the face of God. Assuming we survive them then, as with slavery, we would be able to look back at our behaviour and realise that we were wrong to focus on certain biological traits as the main differentiator.
The human race and individual humans have no God given rights. We will differentiate ourselves only by our actions. By this measure we do not look particularly superior at the moment (when one looks at how we treat each other and other life forms).
Using the principle of economy if we create robots that are capable of moral behaviour then they would have the same rights as any human or being who is similarly capable.
Uncertainty:Quantum theorists believe that at in some respects and at a fundamental level the universe operates on uncertainty and there is a degree of (at least) seeming randomness (probability theory) that means that literally anything is possible (even if very unlikely). Obviously in our quest for perfect robots we will make mistakes and also mistakes will occur (especially once we make robots capable of self replication). It is the mistakes that will likely be a large determinant as to whether we can create a new sentient species. The mistakes will be the pre-condition for artificial intelligence -
as they were for humans.
(the uncertainty principle)
Human frailty:Humans appear to be spectacularly ill-equipped for exploring the greater expanses of the universe. We live short lives and suffer greatly in extremes of environment. Robots can be made to be the natural inheritors and protectors of the universe. This could be what humans are fondly remembered for in aeons to come - our lasting legacy!
The problem of evil:Philosophers and theologists have long debated how the universe can contain a God which is omnipotent and good and yet can allow evil to occur. As good and evil are only relative concepts then it seems obvious that such a being would have to be capable of evil. The being would operate according to higher laws which placed the good of life above any particular individual or race.
In creating robots we will first need them to place humans lives above individual robots lives. Very soon they would then repay the favour and realise that to act in accord with their purpose they must break the first law of robotics and place human life itself above individual human lives.
(
cover art for the short story “Runaround” which was the first book to state all 3 of the laws of Robotics and was eventually collected in “I, Robot” by Isaac Asimov)
The 3 laws of robotics:1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
The new first law would then have to be:"
A robot may not injure humans or, through inaction, allow humans to come to harm."
the current first law would be the second law and so on.
Even better, over time, the robots will eventually realise that humans are just one species and there is a greater principle that requires them to act in a way that protects a diversity (or relativity) of life:
"
A robot may not injure the diversity of life or, through inaction, allow diversity to be harmed."
Then we will have finally created a real God like being out of human skin and bone and not in our own image.
What an interesting
future we have behind us....
Note: For a fantastic short story on this subject read "Night Train" in the novel Ghostwritten by David Mitchell
comments
I think the findings of physics supports the idea that someday we could be capable of doing anything our most advanced robots can, or will do. Alchemists, Newton, most notably, were seeking, not the transmutation of base metals, but the transmutation of their own intelligences. With super analogic intelligence we could loose the bonds of our binary minds, and unlock the mysteries of the universe. We would be able to understand the processes involed in the manipulation of matter by the mind. By changing the vibrations of matter, including the matter of our own mind-bodies we could teleport massive objects, solve the most complex problems at speeds in excess of the most advanced computers, in fact,we could do anything the super heroes in our comic books can do, thus eliminating the need for robots, altogether. But, that's just my opinion.
ohnooooo, my discussion "took on a life of its own." You've created a .... sorry. It's early here and I'm silly. :)
I don't believe in a conventional God as such. But still, thats best left to a time and place other than a discussion on robotics.
In terms of robotics, eventually, were they designed to be like man, they would invent a God. We'd find mirrors of ourselves in machines.
~P~
Hey P! Interesting since you believe in God and I don't; I merely mentioned Him because Pete did. "God is man's reason for explaining the unknown." Courtesy of my grade 9 sociology teacher. I work with an Evangelical Christian, and her response is "because there is also Satan". Pete, I recently heard about something by Epicurus, 341-271 BCE, that I thought said it very well (though you're probably familiar with it, but here it is anyway):
Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent
Is God both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God.
Good points Hyla, however I would have stated that rather than God created the first people, the first people created God.
Adam and Eve are an interesting subject. If God does exist, then it suggests that he liked disobedience, as whilst banishing them from the garden, he unmade Eve's two predecessors.
Regarding robotics again, if any form of robot that can achieve sentience is created, it will certainly be the end of mankind eventually.
Thank goodness we've had the films to warn us.
~P~
It makes me staying up all night wondering when the rain will stop sound so silly :P Great read Pete : )
"over 1500 words" continued...
Have you read “Night-thoughts”, a poem by Alfred Nobel? I just found it while looking up Nobel to be sure I had my thoughts right (the poem is very long and it’s early in the morning here so I haven’t read the whole thing…)
http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/biographical/articles/erlandsson-2/thoughts.pdf
begins:
“The solemn silence of the midnight hour
Unchains the fettered spirit, and the power
Of Reasoning takes a visionary flight
Beyond the limits of detective sight,
Which may deceive us, yet attracts the soul
Even with its wild and daring uncontrol.
T’is then the mind, which care no more absorbs,
In search of God ascends his glowing orbs,
Or grapples with the mysteries which surround
Creation’s work within a narrower bound;….”
Sorry for the length yet again… (what can I say; I love a debate!)
What hath God Wrought
People also seem hard-wired to create hierarchy (Lord of the Flies, which has been borne out by scientific experiments)
Einstein first supported the creation of the A-bomb because of Germany, but later in his life, while justifying its creation for WWII, he was also regretful of its creation when he thought of its destructive potential further down the road.
The first people God created, Adam and Eve, disobeyed Him by eating the forbidden apple.
Nobel also created dynamite for specific purposes and was greatly dismayed when it became used as a weapon as evidenced by his will specifying his estate be used to create prizes, among them, a peace prize.
over 1500 characters...
Penitent makes a good point about terrorism and morality. Like nuclear proliferation (North Korea, Bangladesh, Iran...), what if the "wrong" people got their hands/figured out the technology to create these robots? They could then create a hitler-type robot to wipe out all the Jews in Isreal. Think of anywhere genocide has been committed. China could program them to kill dissidents. etc...
Morality is subjective, and thus machines will be subject to the whim of man.
If they are on our side, they are freedom fighters, if they are against us, they are terrorists.
If they kill civilians it is a atrocity, if we do it is a tough retalitory strike.
If a machine kills for us, it will be a neccessary evil, if it kills us it will be defective.
-
There is one school of thought that believes that God will be a machine, the issue was illustrated in a computer game some time ago, where God was a program that occupied the position by being able to access everything on the internet, and all cameras around the globe. Thus, an all seeing, all knowing God.
This would embody God more actively than any other variant to date, as it achieves sentience, it would begin to make decisions and interpret the information given to it.
-
Thus, with future technology, becoming a true discipe of God would involve transference of consiousness from man to machine. In a robotic shell most tasks could be completed faster. What is more interesting to consider would be if a electronic, virus-like God were to copy itself and transfer its consiousness into a human body. What decisions would it make, how would it behave?
~P~
Good points Hyla:
- the laws of humanity will give robots very limited rights (like slaves and women in many countries in our history) so they will not likely be breaking laws
- acting by good judgment: we are biological creatures with biological wired natures and drives which are often complex and contradictory with our reason. They will have a clean slate!
- materials already exist that are used in extreme conditions on Earth and Space (as well as for very complex engineering) e.g titanium, iridium, alloy steels
- short lives: well yes that would be likely (more with use of robotics in our bodies) but really I am suggesting they would be here for more than just the ability to extend our short lives but really to do things we can not do due to the long distances involved
Not an expert on this so all help welcome!
ONE more thing (having a hard time wrapping my head around this).
"Humans appear to be spectacularly ill-equipped for exploring the greater expanses of the universe. We live short lives and suffer greatly in extremes of environment. Robots can be made to be the natural inheritors and protectors of the universe."
If people progam the robots (at least at first), how will the robots so quickly learn what humankind does not know (certainly "we" can't teach them everything they'd need to know to explore the universe)? Might humans have to devise materials with which to make the robots able to withstand these extremes - or do you know that such materials already exist? Why mention our fraility and short-lived lives? Are you suggesting that the robots will be able to extend our life expectancy and enhance our quality of life (health) as well?
This was interesting to read! But, like the universe, it is not something I can fathom. But I like to learn!
perhaps one of these days I will read Machiavelli...
"In our quest we will inevitably create beings that make and replicate errors -many of which we will no doubt wish to kill off."
If the robots can be killed off by people, then people who do not wish to obey the laws of humanity can kill off the robots - could they not?
Most people have the ability to learn from their mistakes (sociopaths excluded), and while we may learn and know right from wrong, this doesn't mean we accept and live by morality. How will the robots be any different?
While many would tell you to pull your nose out of those sci-fi books and to refrain from watching any more movies, like Babylon A.D., I too am often found sitting in a quiet corner contemplating such things. Who gets to decide the moral code we put into these things. Who decides what's evil, how do we prevent them as artificially intelligent from "re-creating" this information based on their own perception and throwing us all into a matrix? I'm not going to drone on... you covered the basics... but the idea is unsettling... I like people made from flesh.... lines -- I have no idea where to put them.
this is what keeps you up at night? lol
;) what can i say hmmm
no for real, interesting read!
humans vs. one human being
never considered this aspect of the whole problematic!
*oh and thnx for wirrow blog link that a great read too!