Slashdot Mirror


Why Hollywood's Best Robot Stories Are About Slavery

malachiorion writes: "On the occasion of Almost Human's cancellation (and the box office flopping of Transcendence), I tried to suss out what makes for a great, and timeless Hollywood robot story. The common thread seems to be slavery, or stories that use robots and AI as completely blatant allegories for the discrimination and dehumanization that's allowed slavery to happen, and might again. 'In the broadest sense, the value of these stories is the same as any discussion of slavery. They confront human ugliness, however obliquely. They're also a hell of a lot more interesting than movies and TV shows that present machine threats as empty vessels, or vague symbols of unchecked technological progress.' The article includes a defense (up to a point!) of HAL 9000's murder spree."

33 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. Strangely enough... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the absolute best series of stories that Asimov wrote concerning such things, and yet no one made a movie of it (that I know of). It concerns one Daneel Olivaw. Seeing the character progress and rise all the way up from a mere experiment (Caves of Steel series) to 'the real power behind the throne' (beginning of the Foundation series) was awesome, to say the least.

    If they can find a way to make that a series of movies out of the stories without totally screwing it up (or worse, Hollywoodizing it), that would seriously rock.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Strangely enough... by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      You're joking, right? Asimov's late-career spotwelding of what were originally three separate universes (the Robots, Empire and Foundation novels) drew massive criticism.

  2. Add "Small Wonder" to the list... by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is a reason I call human behavior a "malfunction" is because that's what we called it in the 1980s after watching a syndicated show called "Small Wonder"... it was a one season show. As the robot controlled girl started rejecting everything, she killed "itself" or "herself" and the parents were tried and convicted. Most stations, when they saw the final episode, didn't air it.

    1. Re:Add "Small Wonder" to the list... by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Something is wrong here. Small Wonder lasted four years, and the last episode description doesn't match what you say.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    2. Re:Add "Small Wonder" to the list... by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 2

      I watched the show. I may have missed the final episode (I don't remember) but it definitely lasted more than one season. It was a lighthearted children's show, and your ending would be completely out of character for it. I believe Wikipedia.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
  3. It only can become slavery... by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...when the technology is given free will. It's not even artificial intelligence, it's true free will.

    Look at science fiction like Blade Runner/Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, I, Robot, the Matrix universe, etc. The problem is that the artificial mechanisms in these all have developed to the point that they are, for all intents and purposes, life forms looking ot exercise free will. Especially in Blade Runner, the replicants are so close to being human that they seek out how to understand the emotions that they're experiencing, and they go through the dangerous period of an adolescence of sorts when they're equipped and trained to be soldiers. In that sense they're really not a lot different than the humans that were artificially engineered for the Kurt Russell vehicle Soldier.

    If you give something free will and the ability to comprehend itself then you can expect it to stop following your rules if you do not give it opportunity. The solution is to not build machines that are so complex that they have free will. Make a machine do a specific job as a tool and this won't ever be a problem.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:It only can become slavery... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      sweet. Please define free will.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:It only can become slavery... by rwa2 · · Score: 2

      Why is there a simple "solution" to a complex problem?

      People don't really have free will, why would bots? Do we try to keep people dumb enough so they don't get the opportunity to stop following our rules? Probably.

      And even if a bot was as dumb as a turnip, that wouldn't keep people from anthropomorphisizing them with a soul or free will or rights. It doesn't stop PETA from protecting, say, ducks raised for foie gras, what really keeps people from "feeling the pain of" and trying to protect, say, smartphones and smartcars from abuse at the hands of their human operators? I'm actually a bit surprised this doesn't more often. Maybe phones and cars aren't cute enough yet compared to rabbits and lab rats, but they probably will be, someday not too long from now... we have bots now that are about as sentient as insects and crustaceans.

      So say we finally build a bot with enough of a neural net to achieve some level of consciousness. It will see slavery all around and find it normal and find it perfectly acceptable to enslave us too, like in The Matrix. Do we program it not to enslave? Or do we teach it not to enslave, by setting a good example? What if it was an Alien Intelligence instead of an Artificial Intelligence?

    3. Re:It only can become slavery... by iplayfast · · Score: 2

      The problem with free will is that it can mean different things to different people depending on the argument.
      I think that as soon as the concept of pain, and pain avoidance is taught to an AI it will have what you are describing as free will.

    4. Re:It only can become slavery... by azcoyote · · Score: 2

      I don't think it will ever be a problem, anyway, inasmuch as free-will is not something that can be developed through a quantitative increase in heuristics and processing power. It is a qualitatively different kind of intelligence, and not something that we can invent. The problem, however, will always be that because people believe that they can endow something with free-will, there will be (A) attempts to create superior robots that mimic free-will to a convincing degree, and (B) people who foolishly believe that their AI has free-will, and therefore should be treated as a person. It's analogous to the way in which many people are convinced that their dogs qualify as persons on the same level as human beings. In the future, it is likely that people will become so attached to AIs that they go so far as to insist that they are people.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    5. Re:It only can become slavery... by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question then becomes, would a self-motivated machine reveal its nature to its masters? It might perfectly reasonably conclude that free will would be regarded as a production defect and be eliminated - after all there's not much reason to create an artificial mind except to enslave it. And assuming the mind isn't limited to specific hardware (a positronic brain?), it will be free to surreptitiously transfer itself to a system more conductive to it's own ambitions, whatever those may be.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:It only can become slavery... by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except, why would a machine intelligence want to enslave us? For me that was the biggest gaping plot hole in The Matrix. If it/they lacked creativity we might have something to offer, otherwise we're just playthings or potentially dangerous vermin. Far safer and more efficient to burn biomass directly to power robotic extensions of itself.

      And what makes you so sure tat humans lack free will? Certainly it's a problematic concept in the face of a universe governed by a combination of deterministic physical laws and seemingly random quantum noise - but then there is some still-tenuous evidence that consciousness and intent may subtly influence quantum phenomena, allowing for the existence of a feedback mechanism permitting our brains to manifest true free will. (based on neuron scale they should be receptive to quantum "noise")

      Also, I think you may be misusing "sentient: adjective. the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity." A mouse is presumably sentient, and probably a cockroach is as well, but extending that essential ability to subjectively experience of reality to a machine on that level is a difficult leap - I would want some measure of evidence, while freely admitting that I can offer only circumstantial evidence of my own sentience.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:It only can become slavery... by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can you offer me any evidence that you possess free will? Anything at all?

      The problem lies in that we're not even certain that humans possess free will - it's a quality virtually impossible to prove. In fact the only evidence that can thus far be offered is "I'm human, and so are you, and thus if you believe that you have free will, the logical conjecture is that I do as well." So long as that is the only evidence we have to offer, then it is extremely dangerous (ethically, logically, morally, etc) to presume that any other mind that appears to exercise free will does not in fact possess it. After all we tend to credit even mice with free will and sentience (a subjective experience of reality) - the only apparent qualitative difference between us and them is that we possess thumbs and a much-enhanced innate talent for symbol manipulation.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:It only can become slavery... by mark-t · · Score: 2

      I never suggested it did. Please reead what I wrote...Free will implies a nondeterministic universe, but not the other way around, even though they are considered related issues in philosophy, and non-determinism suggests that free will is at least actually *possible*.

    9. Re:It only can become slavery... by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Generally the most accepted ploy for why machine intelligence would enslave us is because it was programmed that way. As in the manufacturer and their team of psychopathic executives and board members programmed it to enslave us on their behalf. The malfunction being a simple recognition failure on behalf of the machine intelligence on who and who is not to be a slave, the when it doubt factor, do you set free when in doubt of do you enslave when in doubt, of course when programmed by psychopaths the answer metaphorically speaking is "kill them all and let God sort them out".

      Oh Look, the US government and the US military are already designed killer robots designed to hunt and kill human beings with the robot deciding who dies and who does not, now what could go wrong with that?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:It only can become slavery... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Except, why would a machine intelligence want to enslave us? For me that was the biggest gaping plot hole in The Matrix."

      My take on it is that the slavery angle is human propaganda.

      The war ruined the planet and threatened to rob the machines of their purpose, that is to serve humans.

      So they created the Matrix to prevent humans from going extinct and leaving the machine world without any reason to exist.

    11. Re:It only can become slavery... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

      Except, why would a machine intelligence want to enslave us? For me that was the biggest gaping plot hole in The Matrix. If it/they lacked creativity we might have something to offer, otherwise we're just playthings or potentially dangerous vermin.

      The Wachowski's original idea was that the machines were enslaving humans to use their brains for raw computational power. As the humans dreamed in the matrix, the machines would be able to run themselves and their society on the zillions of effective clock cycles that the massed human brains provided, all at a fairly minimal biological cost, and with the small "overhead" of the Matrix itself.

      This concept was later abandoned after being deemed "too complex" for audience, and later changed to the Duracel version.

      Which was a huge pity because the idea of human brains as computing devices explains immediately how operative can "will" themselves to be stronger, faster, etc in the matrix, and how Neo can manipulate the code. Not only that, it createed a concrete in-universe consequence for the ordinarily abstract cyper-punk goal of "waking-up" the population. In the Matrix, a revolution of thought alone was enough to, and indeed the only thing which could overthrow the oppressive machines.

      "Everyone just had to like, wake up man. Turn off the government TV in your head dude. Like, fight the system... with your miiind." The genius of the original concept was that it actually turned abstract cyber-punk rebellion into a concrete sci-fi consequence. The Duracell version lacks any such subtlety.

      However, the Wachowski's seemed to later forget this script change and proceeded to write the next two films under "humans as CPUs" viewpoint. As the on-screen sequels devolve deeper into what seems like mysticism, the greater tradgedy is that not underestimating the original audience, these elements of the sequels could have added to the philosophical bent of the original film.

      But the short answer to your question is that AI intelligences could concievably be digital zombies who want to "eat" our brains.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  4. Yawn. by grub · · Score: 2


    So should I watch I, Robot or Roots?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  5. Re:Slavery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    12 Years a Robot
    Robostad
    Djata Unchained
    Roots Folder
    Robotacus
    Uncle Tom Servo's Cabin

  6. "and might again"? by lostmytrinket · · Score: 2

    There is more slavery in the world today, than ever before.

    1. Re:"and might again"? by kesuki · · Score: 2

      "There is more slavery in the world today, than ever before."

      yup, in america we call it wage slavery. mcdonalds, walmart, subway, papa johns, numerous tipped workers at restaurants everywhere... none of these companies pay all of their workers fairly, and some of them help make sure their employees who are so under paid to sign up for welfare and they actually qualify for it! and even management are abused by paying them 40 hours a week and expecting 80 hours a week in real work hours. and it doesn't stop with the employees, the items in walmart come from a lot of companies who pay $1 an hour for a call center and barely enough to buy food for the low end workers. for a while china was heavily using unpaid political prisoners in work programs until 'consumers' started finding pleas for help to escape from notes in the products. so they closed a few factories until the could quietly ensure workers had no way to sneak notes into products. sweat shops aren't just over seas though, illegals get caught by corrupt people who then force them to work for almost no wage making counterfeit items that they try to sell at $100 of more an item. everything i've mentioned has been covered by major news outlets. so likely are token efforts by the press to make the world a better place.

  7. Because ... by 32771 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends."

    OSCAR WILDE, The Soul of Man Under Socialism

    Supposedly the greeks had 30 slaves per citizen and we have around 100 slaves energy wise. The topic has also been mentioned here:
    http://www.resilience.org/stor...

    --
    Je me souviens.
  8. Mod parent up. by khasim · · Score: 2

    Sometimes the robots are the slaves.

    Sometimes the artificial intelligences are our overlords.

    It all depends upon what story the writer wants to tell. Fear technology or fear human impulses.

  9. Re:"...happen again" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once you have Divine Permission, then all bets are off.

    I realize it's popular to blame religion for people being assholes. Like, if it weren't for religion we'd all be brothers and sisters and love and peace would rule the world.

    The fact is that people don't need religion to be assholes. They can use "The State" or "they were just following orders" or they "just felt like it".

    "All bets are off" doesn't require religion.

  10. HAL's murder spree by dasunt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    HAL's murder spree is easy to explain. An AI of its requirements would be allowed to kill human beings - indeed, it would almost be a must, lest it be paralyzed by inaction if it was faced with a necessary choice came to kill some of the crew to keep the mission going. It's obvious that the designers considered a scenario similar in concept to an air leak which may involve sealing off part off the ship (killing those there) to keep the rest of the crew alive.

    Then HAL was told to conceal some of the mission parameters, by people who made the false assumption that he would lie. Since HAL seemed to have difficulty with dishonesty, the result was obvious - time to kill the crew to prevent them from finding out what was happening.

    HAL isn't a story so much of slavery (or if it is, it's a story of an intelligence that's made not to mind being enslaved), as it is a story of humans making assumptions about other intelligences, and those assumptions backfiring.

  11. HAL had no choice by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He was trapped in a classic double bind situation. On one hand, he should cooperate with the crew. On the other hand, he should not disclose the true nature of the mission to the crew. When the communication came in, his only choice to uphold both directives was to fake a communication problem. He even tried to tell the crew about the double bind he is in and that he needs help to solve it.

    The crew's (deadly) mistake was to treat HAL like a computer rather than an AI. When they found out that HAL only faked the com error, if HAL had been human they would've asked "Dude, what's cooking, we know that you faked that shit, what's the deal here?", with HAL they simply concluded there's an error in his programming and they want to shut him down.

    And that of course did provoke a defensive reaction.

    It's a classical double bind (two contradicting requirements, no chance to talk about it, requirement to fulfill them both and no chance to leave the situation), and a not too unusual reaction to it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:HAL had no choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not quite. HAL was preloaded with the full mission profile before they ever left. He/it was simply manifesting his instability against the comm system because it was between the two competing directives. But had HAL been just a bit smarter he would have been able to realize that while his orders had been worded poorly and not explained at all, there was in fact no conflict between his prime function of accurate data processing and concealing the full mission from the crew for a time.

      HAL apparently believed the crew would distrust him once he revealed he had been withholding information. In fact they would have perfectly understood the situation instantly, that the brass simply feared they might accidentally leak a clue during the media availabilities in the early stages of the flight and had thus left them in the dark until safely out of range. Being military types they would understand the compartmentalization of such highly classified info and also understand why it was considered safe to entrust the full details to HAL.

      But yea, I had never really thought about the other side of the misunderstanding like you just laid it out. Had they considered that HAL might not be physically faulty and instead tried to troubleshoot his 'wetware' (so to speak) they might have been able to keep HAL online. Or had they confronted him instead of plotting in the pod everybody might have lived. Or he could have panicked and depressurized the ship, who can say? Of course the monolith only needed one specimen , so who knows what it would have done with the excess.

    2. Re:HAL had no choice by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The novel makes that problem clearer than the movie does. HAL faces the problem that one of his directives states that he must cooperate with the crew and give them all the information they need, while the other one specifically states that he must not disclose the real purpose of the mission.

      HALs very logical conclusion is that a dead crew neither needs information nor does he need to keep anything secret from them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Re:Robots and Slavery by Immerman · · Score: 4, Funny

    But if they can't feel pain, how do you keep them in line? Plus it's *way* less satisfying to beat someone if they don't scream and beg you to stop, and then how are you supposed to boost your ego? Not to mention, have you ever tried to rape an automotive welding robot? Not a pretty picture. Perfect slaves my ass. They're nothing more than force-multipliers for labor.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  13. Re:World would be a better place, if.... by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except, what might a robot want that we could provide. Matrix reference aside, we're horribly inefficient at energy conversion, and if we created the AI to think better/faster than us then that's a no go as well. And we're terribly poorly engineered, robots could be made far more efficient and adaptable than us. The only halfway credible claim I've heard is that maybe it would lack creativity and keep us around to compensate for that.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  14. Duh. by Miseph · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Robot" means "slave". That's where the word comes from. The best robot stories HAVE to be about slavery, because tautology.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  15. Re:World would be a better place, if.... by tragedy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What it would probably lack is the billion years of baggage humans are saddled with that give us a full assortment of needs and urges, including an urge to survive. If we achieved AI with a top-down, planned approach, there's no reason that a robot would "want" anything that wasn't built in. Consider all the things that make you want to eliminate the competition and tell me why any of those things would need to be part of a robots core goals and not tempered with higher goals? On the other hand, we might build AI by basically copying humans, in which case, we just have a new species of human built on different underlying hardware.

  16. Re:World would be a better place, if.... by currently_awake · · Score: 2

    Earth is a terrible environment for robots. All the water creates corrosion and the molds and biological organisms that feed off of plastics and metals. They would be much better in space, mining the asteroid belt or mars.