Slashdot Mirror
The Onion on Robots
PigAlien writes "Move over, Jon Katz, Helen Virginia Leidenmeyer's here with a stunning and inspirational essay, courtesy of The Onion about our children's future... the future of robots. " I think it's the Whitney Houston (?) song that's quoted throughout that really gladdens my heart.
Actually, wether or not strong AI is possible or not is rather besides the point. It is not necessary for robots to *really* be self aware to enslave/exterminate humanity. They need only emulate self awareness well enough that we can't tell the difference by observing them.
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
I laughed so hard the first time I read it I couldn't breathe properly for five minutes, and I tried to read it out loud to a friend but couldn't get a sentance out without cracking up.
I brought in a printout to school the next day with the parts identifying the source removed, and showed it to several people. Most of them bought it! My comp sci teacher got really confused ("can they do that? No way... or could they? No, that's impossible.. could they do that?") She still hasn't forgiven me ;-)
Vidi, Vici, Veni
OK, it was cool at first because they started by killing all the spammers... but then they started getting rid of all the porn!
By the time all the porn was gone, most of humanity had little will to live left, and the end came swiftly. Only a few humans are left alive to be the playthings of their AIBO/Internet masters.
You've been warned. Stop before it is too late.
Thad >:)
The Bolachek Journals
Assuming that strong AI is possible, for the moment, then like any technology, it will be implemented eventually, so it's beside the point to say "oh, but we shouldn't."
So then the question is, how should we accentuate the positive while avoiding the negative possibilities?
And guess what, this article could be taken as a road map as to which issues are actually most important (teach AIs/robots the best points of humans, like love, while avoiding our worst, like murder/war). And certainly give much thought and effort to how best to integrate our creations with our society, or vice versa, or whatever works. (E.g. hiveminds may or may not be desirable, but it would be best to ponder why or why not.)
For some people all this is too much of a stretch; if so, try reading roboticist Hans Moravec's "Mind Children" (or probably his most recent book, which I haven't seen yet). Then try it again; little is a stretch after trying Moravec's ideas out. :-)
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
WE ARE OUR FUTURE!
---my apologies for the length of this post, but i hope its length
---will be compensated for by a few interesting observations.
---i sent this reply to: editorial@theonion.com
http://www.theonion.com/onion3522/robots_are_th
| Let us offer tenderness and show the robots all the beauty they
| possess inside. We must write a subroutine that gives them a sense
| of pride, programming their supercooled silicon CPUs with
| understanding, compassion and patience, to make it easier and
| enable them to hold their sensory-input clusters high as they
| claim their destiny as overlords of the solar system...
i would like to make a response to your article, "I Believe The
Robots Are Our Future" by Helen Virginia Leidermeyer.
firstly, i must appluad your desire to imbue the future with a caring
and feeling that is all too much absent in much of life today. this
is commendable, and it shows a goodness in you. i hope you will not
take this letter the wrong way, because i have a couple comments that
may sound somewhat harsh, but please consider this in view of what
is actual, rather than a knee-jerk emotional reaction.
i believe it is somewhat of a fantastical vision to think of creating
robots with feelings and compassion--it is based on a serious
misunderstanding of the nature of machine logic.
first, to assume that sentience can arise from machines is a big leap,
but then to think that a sentience based purely upon LOGIC will have
a similar conscience with FEELING and compassion is improbable. if it
is possible for machine sentience to even exist, logic knows nothing of
compassion or FEELING, these are human attributes that are not based on
logic. to think that these traits are communicable to a logic-based life
is absurd. logic is cold and calculating, it knows nothing of feeling.
this makes the story amusing to read perhaps, but nothing more than sentimental daydreaming drivel. the machines would skewer you for it.
| If we cannot instill their emergent AI meta-consciousness with a
| sense of deep, abiding confidence and self-esteem, we will be
| letting down not only the robots, but ourselves.
this overlooks the fact of the nature of "self-esteem". it is not
probable that you can imbue a logical sentience with a trait such
as "self-esteem", or even that it requires it. you are thinking too
much like a human. to "let them down" does not compute if it is
not actually something that is possible.
to this, one might respond, "so why don't we find a way to TEACH them
to have feelings. this line of thought seems to make much sense until
you go a little deeper into the issue. in order to go deeper, we have
to understand the nature of EMPATHY, and the reason empathy exists for
life at all in the first place.
this raises big questions: what is life? what is sentience? what is
feeling? until these are adequately addressed, this sort of article
can only deal with things at a very superficial level. at the risk
of being trite, i will make a few suggestions.
consider the following:
1 - if it is true that we can build robot machines with "thinking"
capacity, then you will understand that these machines are built
according to certain principles of electronics (using binary "and",
"or", "nor", and "nand" circiuts -- you can take any first year
electronics course to understand that the entire basis for computer
operations is based on an assembly of of these logic circiuts.
2 - once a complex aglamoration of logic circiuts is assembled, you
end up with a CPU (or clusters of cpus), RAM, an address bus, etc.
then you programme this assembly of logical operations using a
logic-based language. computer programming lanugages are simply
more flexible forms for rewiring these logic circiuts. they are
still entirely based in logic. it is imperitive to understand that
anything that can be programmed in software can be executed in a
hardware format by wiring the right logic circiuts together. this
is why it is possible for video card manufacturers to provide
"hardware acceleration" for previously software based systems.
3 - now for a point of utmost significance:
the basis for our thinking--i.e. our brain organism is not
formed along the lines of digital logic circiuts as are computers.
the basic process involves an organism that includes: growth and
organic cell reproduction (which is most significantly different
than an entirely physical medium of circiuts alone. if you
follow this through, you must understand that the nature of
process of a logic-based sentience (if that is even possible)
would be inherently different in character than one based upon
the conscious-organic membering of the thinking organism.
IT IS UPON THIS VERY "LIVING GROWTH" CHARACTERISTIC OF THE HUMAN
MIND WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR **FEELINGS** it is a gross leap of
faith to believe that it is possible that a logic-based sentience
could develop feeling qualities in the absence of a FEELING
ORGANISM.
4 - THE NATURE OF MEMORY - the basis for human ego is based on the
fact that we have memory. the nature of human memory is fundamentally
different than computer storage of "memory". if you study
neuro-psychology, you will understand that scientists have had
utmost difficulty in localising memory in the human brain. that
is because human memory is not like RAM at all. rather, each time
you recall something, you are not doing a lookup from a
physical-electronic memory address, the impression is brought
up as an entirely new creation within your consciousness. you
must consider this very fundamental difference between machine
"memory" and human memory which is an aspect of self-consciousness
(i.e. "self awareness"; "i am").
| Though our comparatively tiny mammalian brains--limited as they are
| by organic human failings and a constant need for daily nutritional
| intake instead of reliance on more efficient non-depletable solar
| and geothermal energy sources--will no doubt seem pathetically
| ineffectual compared to the interlinked, continually upgrading
| cyberminds that will follow in our footsteps, our humble origins
| will provide the seed for their genesis. Humanity, weak as we may
| be, must give the best of ourselves to the synthetic hiveminds of
| the future cyber-era, for we will be their first and most important
| role models.
with all due respect, this presumes that a logic-based intelligence
is in some way "superiour" to human flesh-and-blood intelligence.
that is quite an assumption, and a self-depreciating one at that.
you undervalue human life if you already regard machine life to
be superiour to human life before it is actualy, or even known to
be possible. you are devaluing human life based upon a speculation.
additionally, there whether you have: i) food input, or ii) solar
cell energy input -> you still require an input to sustain the
activity. to say that "food" input is somehow inferior to a
solar-cell or electrical input is nothing short of misguided.
it is a more advanced technology that can DIGEST its surroundings.
4 - LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS: MINERAL; PLANT; ANIMAL; MAN.
consider this: what is the basis of life? physical science analyses
only the physical phenomenon of nature, and therefrom proposes the
theory that CONSCIOUSNESS arises as an attribute of a complex
interaction of dynamic physical processes. in short, matter is
primary, and consciousness an attribute of interactions within
matter. but the material view has difficulty explaining the role
and fundamental nature of consciousness.
"The naive consciousness...treats thinking as something which
has nothing to do with the things, but stands altogether apart
from them, and turns its consideration to the world. The picture
which the thinker makes of the phenomena of the world is
regarded not as something belonging to the things, but as
existing only in the human head. The world is complete in
itself without this picture. It is quite finished in all its
substances and forces, and of this ready-made world man makes
a picture. Whoever thinks thus need only be asked one question.
What right have you to declare the world to be complete
without thinking?" (Rudolf Steiner, *The Philosophy of Freedom*)
if you examine, you will find that all AI (artififical
intelligence ) arguments are based on this assumption. however,
this is far from ever having been demonstrated. you cannot go
forward with any notion of artificial intelligence until you come
to a satisfactory comprehension of the nature of consciousness.
there is another way of looking at the matter however that many
physical-scientific thinkers will not admit to, and it is this:
that if you consider conscious-sentience to be primary, and matter
to be a manifestation of an active sentience working within the
realm of matter, then many of the inexplicable facts of nature
are resolved rather neatly. but in order to understand how this
can be, we must delineate of what the levels between matter and
consciousness are comprised.
MINERAL -- PLANT -- ANIMAL -- EGO
- looking at a rock and a plant, ask yourself what is the fundamental
difference between them? a rock is inanimate, it does not GROW,
whereas a plant GROWS. it takes mineral up into itself, digests
the rock and soil and GROWS into a new form.
- from this we can understand that a plant has something that a rock
does not have; and that something about the plant which causes it
to grow is can be called its "growth attribute".
- so the difference between a plant and a rock is that the plant
has both a physical mineral structure which can be touched and
measured, and it also has another attibute which causes it to
grow, and the rock has a physical structure only without a growth
attribute.
- when this growth attribute is removed from the plant, it is said to
"die" - it becomes a dead shriveled up piece of vegetation. it then
has only a mineral attribute, and no longer contains the growth
attribute. it is then nothing more than re-formed mineral substance;
life has left it.
- now, looking at a plant and an animal, we can ask the question:
what is the difference between a plant and an animal?
there is something about the animal which causes it to be able
to be moved by it's passions, it's desires, it's instincts. it's
limbs and organs are formed according to this force, and allow this
force to express itself in action. an animal has passions and
desires, a plant does not. when the passion body is removed from
the growth and physical bodies, an animal is said to be "asleep".
when the passion AND growth bodies are removed from the physical
body, the animal is said to be "dead".
- now compare: the plant stays in place, but unlike the stone, it
grows from the soil, and moves the soil and water along itself in
such a way that it grows. in addition to this, the animal has
something about it which causes it to move it's place, and follow
it's instincts and passions. so are it's organs formed to serve
these instincts and passions. when it is hungry, it can move itself
to obtain food. the plant must accept it's fate. if it is stepped
on, there is nothing about it that can get itself to move of it's
own volition. the animal, however, when in danger, can move itself
so that it gets out of danger. this something that causes the
animal to move about from place to place and determine it's course
(which the plant does not have) is what is called it's passion
body; it contains the passions, instincts, and character of an
animal.
- IN NATURE, the habits, instincts, desires, and passions are
primary. the growth organism conforms in accordance to the
pre-existing HABITS of passion. then from the modified growth
organism, a new PHYSICAL structure results: structures conformed
to the cyclic repitition of movements. this creates a structure
which inherently conforms to the circumstances in which it performs
its growth. just as a tree may grow right around a metal bar
lodged within it.
| It is only through our guidance with a firm yet gentle hand that they
| will achieve full sentience and eventually adapt for themselves the
| capacity for autonomous self-replication. Only then, nurtured by our
| love and caring, will they be prepared for the inevitable day that
| they must leave the nest of human supervision and servitude and begin
| independently mass-manufacturing themselves by the hundreds of
| thousands.
there is an important and fundamental distinction here. humans and
all living things can reproduce themselves through GROWTH, and through
the growth organism can replicate from within themselves, OUT OF THEIR
OWN NATURE; whereas machines are made not from the inside out, but
rather from the OUTSIDE -> IN. they must be assembled and manufactured
using external processes. the fundamental difference between a living
and a dead thing is that: LIVING THINGS ARE ANIMATED FROM THE INSIDE
OF THEIR NATURE OUT; AND DEAD THINGS ARE MADE FROM THE OUTSIDE
TO BE ANIMATED.
- THE MOVEMENT EXISTS, THE ORGAN FORMS AROUND IT
if the motions and flows of blood in the human organism, or the
air moving through the lungs could be present without the organs
yet formed to hold the blood - the blood flowing with no organs yet
existant to contain the flowing. No viens, no arteries, no heart
pump; only the movement of the blood in its circulatory patterns.
If you could do this, you would find that slowly, by a sort of
building-up and depositing of bits along the course of the flowing,
viens, heart and arteries would begin to appear. In fact, this is
just what happens in the development of the embryo. The movement
exists; the organ forms around it. This is the organic process of
growth. This is evident also in the growth of cities, plants,
networks, etc. The legacy of the growth determines the history,
or unique character of a particular instance of a certain set of
movement configurations or Habits. There is a fundamental
difference in approach if you try and build the FORM first to
dictate the movements, or if you let the movements determine
the shape of the FORM. in every observed natural growing
formation, the form is determined from the inside->out, rather
than the physical-scientific method of determining form from
the outside->in. even if you consider the advances of
nano-technology, you are still essentially constructing things
from material matter on up to a materially-based consciousness.
this method is directly derived from the notion (theory) that
consciousness is an attribute of matter. it is based upon a flawed
understanding of nature, life and sentience.
emotion and FEELING are closely allied to sense-impression, but
there is a point where sense impression is transformed into FEELING,
and that transformation is not possible without a corresponding
FEELING ORGAN. it may be possible to give an illusion of feeling
by means of behaviour-logic programming, but you cannot say that
such behaviour will be similar in nature to human or animal feeling.
things can only FEEL and LOVE, because they are living.
without an organ of FEELING (growth organism), the machine is
unrelated to the human world, and the natural world of anything
that is alive and GROWS. without an integral GROWTH organism,
you will never be able to teach machines how to CARE, or LOVE
as you so optimistically posit in your article. i write this
not to discourage you, but perhaps so that you will understand
the nature of what you are dealing. logic cannot be the basis
for love, only LIFE can be the basis for love.
best regards,
johnrpenner@earthlink.net
My reactions to this article as I was reading it, in chronological order
1) Confusion
2) Disbelief
3) Anger
4) Pain, as I smacked myself on the forehead when I realized it was from TheOnion.com.
-
Thad (a loyal Onion fan)
The Bolachek Journals
The intrinsic beauty must be in that it is such a succinct hell sexy parody.
The irony is that that in the basis of paroody therin lies a truth. There is a message here, even if there's a big tongue skewering the cheek.
It reads a bit like Sally-Jane Raphael meets late night tele-evangelist that just accidentally swallowed the latest copy of Wired.
Let us offer tenderness and show the robots all the beauty they possess inside.
Ha ha! Yes lets!
BLAMMO shaken not stirred
My guess is that she has watched too many Terminator flicks and is issuing a veiled warning to humanity about what awaits us if we aren't careful about the broader ramification of our rampaging cyber progress.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Oh God, let's not.
I really don't want to wake up some morning in forty years to read about some A.I./robot who was an adopted orphan that was alternatingly verbally/physically abused and then ignored by it's foster parents, became psychologically unbalanced, spent its teenage years in a mental hospital, became an alcoholic and drug abuser with no immediate job prospects, and then went on a one-week bender which resulted in the A.I. taking a high-powered mining laser to the top of the Washington Monument and torching a good section of D.C.