Sci-fi becomes reality, unsurprisingly

Way back here I spent a little time thinking about robots, and about how stories about ‘robots’ make us think hard about what it means to be ‘human’.  Funny thing, is now it looks like it is becoming reality.  No kidding – check out this article in the SMH.  The article considers briefly the possibly ethical difficulties involved with robots that are involved with the care of humans.

With prices plunging by 80 per cent since 1990, consumer sales of robots have surged in the 21st century, reaching nearly 5.5 million in 2008, and are expected to double to 11.5 million in the next two years.  “They are set to enter our lives in unprecedented numbers,” said [Professor of AI & Robotics] Noel Sharkey, expressing fear that an absence of ethical rules fixed by international bodies could mean the machines’ control will be left to militaries, the robot industry and busy parents.

Of course, laws regarding robots are important, and there is plenty of stuff around that considers all of this anyway.  Isaac Asimov’s three laws were originally intended as a way of thinking through these things, way back in 1940.  The Wiki article is pretty good, and there’s also this extensive page.  This also means the comment about Asimov’s stories being ‘doomsday scenarios’ is completely beside the point – they are just a fictional frame.  That is to say, the SMH article is not really “news”, but rather a synopsis of an academic science article, and seemingly hardly original at that.    But laws take time to make, and technology advances rapidly – the analogy with internet and copyright for music is a good analogy; legal consideration for loading up your iPod took a long time to catch up.

But will the laws really change much?  There are still humans somewhere along the line, whether employing robots, or building them, and, for the present at least, robots are just clever tools.  Sharkey (the Robot scientist) seems to have a view of Government as a kind of big parent, needing to control what people do with their robot toys.  Reprint Asimov’s books, I say, and lets have some fun reading them (publishers, are you listening?).  And then think hard about what it means to be human, or post human, or whatever.

Filed under: Isaac Asimov, books, ethics, technology , Asimov, books, moral reflection, Politics, Robots, technology

I, Robot, take you, humans…

I’ve been reading Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot again these last couple of days. It was prompted by watching the film – shall we call it a ’suggestion’ (as it doesn’t actually follow a story line of Asimov’s) – starring Will Smith.

I thought the movie did particularly well. It is amazing how the insertion of robots into a narrative can give rise to all sorts of questions about the nature of humans, the ethics of government and ultimately the question of what is ‘good’ – one of life’s fundamental questions.

Therein lies the brilliance of Asimov’s writing. The ‘3 Laws of Robotics’, are so caught up with the history of philosophy and politics, that, despite being very entertaining stories, they are also penetrating and critical accounts of various aspects of philosophy.

The 3 laws are:

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 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.

There are any number of ways to interpret these – depending on your definitions of ‘harm’, ‘human’, ‘injure’ etc. For example, is hurting someone’s feelings ‘harm’? Is an antidote, (which is technically poison), good? See how it might raise complexities? What about the question of justice, and punishment? See how brilliant these ‘fictitious’ laws are? They function as a problematicisation of the entirety of western thought.

I guess the ultimate question is, what is good for us? It’s a question that has been answered from Socrates and Plato, to Jesus, to Kant and Rawls. What do you think?

Filed under: Isaac Asimov, Philosophy