A Thought About Robots #3

So when do humans become obsolete?

Every time I go through the self-checkout, I can't help but think about how someone's job was probably stolen by these machines. They were replaced by something that's ultimately cheaper for the store to employ. I realize that not everyone uses these things, (old people/Luddites.) But time marches on and these people die and technology becomes more advanced and more accepted by the next generation. It creeps and crawls, slowly seeding its self into every facet of life and absorbs more jobs held by people. (Emphases on slowly) We've really only just begun but think about it; we already have vehicles that can drive themselves. With just a tiny bit of development (and an overwhelming start-up and retrofitting fee), say goodby to cab drivers, bus drivers, train conductors, airline pilots, truckers, waste management truck drivers, ice cream truck drivers, etc. That's a LOT of jobs and they're all filled by essentially the same single specialized computer.

Now there's a difference between robotizing a job for safety, (like making a bomb squad bot or a space probe,) and robotizing a job so that higher-ups in a corporation can reap a little more monetary benefits. It's the latter that's potentially so destructive to society.

Let me pose a terrifying question. What happens when robots and AI are so advanced that they can do any job? What if everyone could be replaced with a machine that could do their job exponentially better and cost whoever was above them significantly less to run or manage whatever business? Then what about that manager? They'd get replaced too to cut their paycheck from the overhead and the people above them and the people above them to maximize efficiency and profit. A whole skyscraper of cubicles and work-spaces consolidated into a super computer which operates a massive network of robots. What in a capitalist society will stop complete automation?  

There must be an equilibrium somewhere between human and machine but I desperately hope it's somewhere in the middle versus complete replacement of the human species or a handful of aristocrats sitting upon a completely automated cab conglomerate, (or whatever,) with nothing to do but watch electronic money transfers roll in.

But that wouldn't really happen, would it? At least not forever. That kind of economy couldn't be sustained. All of these out of work people would undoubtedly create their own society called the 'No Robots Club' which would in turn cause the economy that they left to collapse. The aristocrats would come crawling on their knees to the No Robots Club when their money becomes worthless. And then we enter a technological dark age where robots are outlawed. But what of the society abandoned by humans? Only robots remain in their own self sufficient world but it's not a writhing sentient hive-mind with nothing but disdain for humans like in The Matrix Revolutions. It's more like a story out of The Twilight Zone. The existence of a robot is only justified by the humans who use them. With no humans to serve, what are they ultimately doing with their time?

Yes sir, in the future there are only two types; robots with nothing to do and hard working Amish. You heard it here first!

A Thought About Robots #2

When you think about it, the genre/motif of space marines shouldn't exist even in its own universe. Why? Robots. If space marines as we know them can exist, robots advanced enough to replace them can exist. The military is the largest investor in robotics R&D and it's all leading up to this: the robot soldier.

There's an obvious reason the genre exists though. It can hold genuine drama and action for one. For another, experiencing an interplanetary war through the eyes of a platoon of T-100s is probably dry, scary and unrelatable for most people. So we kind of just ignore this contradiction altogether because we want space marines, dammit! For an obvious example of this, let's look at some James Cameron movies.

In James Cameron's Aliens (A true space marine magnum opus, really only in competition with Starship Troopers,) space marines go to a developing planet colony to wipe out an alien scourge threatening the settlers there. Now within the Alien universe, it's already established that humanoid robots exist. In fact they're in every Alien movie (even if it's basically the same one in the first three). Not only do they exist, they're so human-like that it's impossible to tell them apart from humans. So just give them a gun and some power armor and there you go, space marine out of a job.

In addition to being a stand-in for a human in dangerous situations, they're also a stand-in for a human in a terrible job situation. Think about the handful of people on the Nostromo tanker who have to spend years in stasis while they drift from place to place. If there was ever a job that should be taken by robots, that's it. The robots don't have family lives and don't need life support systems. They could just sit around deactivated until activated by the computer. In Alien one of the seven crew members actually was a robot already, so why not ALL of them? The entire operation could and should be fully automated.

In James Cameron's Avatar, it's essentially the same thing in a crude glance. Space marines go to planet and kill aliens. (Actually I guess the humans are technically the only aliens in this one.) So the difference here is that these uh... indigenous beings are more advanced than xenomorphs and can be reasoned with and even befriended. The small group of humans that doesn't want to just wipe them off of the face of the planet use genetically engineered hybrid bodies, that look like the indigenous beings, to go mingle and establish relations with them. Their consciousness can literally possess and control these empty vessels. These vessels are what are known as "avatars."

So what they're saying is that in a world where you can quantum leap into another body which happens to be a human-made hybrid of two different species, unmanned aircraft don't exist, unmanned mech units don't exist, and robotic soldiers/avatar soldiers don't exist? Come on!

A Thought About Robots #1

When does a cyborg become a full blown robot?

Can you be a human and a robot at the same time?

A cyborg, put simply, is a biological organism with a mechanical enhancement of some kind. It is a broad spectrum ranging from having a hook for a hand to being nothing more than a brain hooked up to an entire prosthetic robot body. But at what point does a human have enough of their being stripped from them to not be considered human anymore?

I don't think it would be too difficult to argue that a human brain in a robot body trying to live out a normal life would be legally considered a human and even still be able to vote and get married... maybe. If allowing gay marriage is such a big deal it might be a stretch for a brain in a robot body. Maybe as long as it was a heterosexual brain. Anyway if someone that is perpetually comatose can be human than so should a full-chasied cyborg, so let's just assume that a still normal functioning human brain = human.

But what if we go further? What if the whole human brain is digitized perfectly and loaded onto a computer within the same robot body. Now every biological component of the human body has been removed. You are no longer a cyborg but are you still human? Is all there is to being human as superficial as still having a bit of flesh? Is it not human anymore by virtue of being a copy of the original or is it still human because there is no difference between the two beings except for the medium in which their brain is retained?

Ghost in the Shell is the best example I can think of that explores this area. The main character, Major Motoko, is referred to as a cyborg but in the conventional sense, she isn't. She has a full prosthetic body with a computer brain carrying the 'ghost' from her former biological body. Aside from the few extra perks that she has, she still looks and acts as human as anyone else. Now look at Robocop. This man was murdered and brought back to life as a cyborg officer. He should technically be just as human as the Major. Except his body actually looks robotic and his brain seems to function differently now with less emotion and fragmented memories. He is mentally less complete than he was as a fully biological human so he seems to be tipped more toward the machine end of the spectrum. Yet within the movie there is a sort of conflict between which is better in the line of duty, humans/human cyborgs or fully robotic mech units. It's the classic human versus robot debate where the human edges out the robot because he possesses something that just can't be emulated by a robot. Robocop, (Weller) is justified as a good 'human' compared to the evil mechs because he retains enough of his humanity.

If in the end a digitized human brain in a robot body is definitively not a human then what about a sophistocated AI uploaded into a blank human brain in a human body?