The
Robot Revolution 1
May. 2004
What are the reasons to talk about it? Why are we
making prognoses? What makes us shudder with fear, try to overcome or
do not overcome our fear? Some of the answers are hidden in the assumptions
that we assign the evolution of the robots, similar to that of the living
organism. We dread that this is an evolution, which we won’t be
able to control. By allowing the robots’ independence we either
dread the possibility of their defining the inequality compared to the
human beings and thus making them rebellious against it, or their desire
to rule the world mimicking their creators - I.e. the humans.
Precisely this robot “independence” is
the quality which isn’t stimulated in the developing of robots with
military or production designation. In order to make a robot serve, one
should be able to predict its behaviour with 100% certainty.
In the context of the 100% certainty the “bad
guys” are those human beings, who bring forward the issue of independance
and equality between humans and robots. The following text is dedicated
to these cathegories and if the reader is sympathetic with them, then
he plays the part of the “bad guy” whose density as a character
in the happy-end-robot-machine-rebellion movies usually is humiliation
or at its best - death.
Thou reading thy text - exercise your wits well and decide whether you
are ready to side with the “bad guys” and loose!
When talking about the evolution of robots the project
‘Living robots’ is often mentioned. This is one of the possible
ways humans can imagine the development of their artificial creations.
What could we read on the web site dedicated to the
project 2:
“'Living Robots' is a world-first experiment
into artificial evolution.
Designed by the Creative Robotics Unit at Magna (CRUM) the robots are
the brainchild of Professor Noel Sharkey, a leading expert on machine
learning and bio-robotics and a regular on the BBC as a judge on Robot
Wars and a technical consultant in TechnoGames. The Living Robots have
one goal - to obtain enough energy to survive and breed. To do this,
the robots co-evolve in an artificial food chain in which some must
graze and some must hunt. The prey finds their food from light sensors
within the arena, while the predators feed off prey by stalking and
chasing them before sucking away their power.
In natural systems, energy may enter in sunlight
that is absorbed by plants and stored in a form that can be ingested
by organisms that use the plants as their energy stores. These organisms
will act as energy stores for other creatures, their predators, who,
in turn, may be prey to other, tougher predators, and so on. This is
the basis of the food chain, and it is considered to be one of the main
driving forces in evolution.”
The creators of this artificial world, as we could
clearly deduce from the web site text, have tried to make use of the theory
of evolution of the species as a basis for the artificial evolution, developed,
conducted and closely examined by them.
As “bad guys” we do not appreciate the
implementation of ideas of violence, or the idea that “the stronger
survives” into robotic world. We think that this blind imitation
of aggressive theories for development of any kind of entity is quite
dangerous for the human/robot relations, and extremely accusable for the
purity of the human consciousness.
Some imaginary (and may be quite real) possibilities
for the robot development based on the theory of evolution of the species,
human society and individual would be presented as examples of happy or
miserable scenarios for our future.
2.1. The predator’s qualities necessary
for military purposes
“The war of the robots” is apparently
a small-scale model of the duel between the great military robots. This
is a good though rather a simplified example of which robot qualities
are most valuable for the production of military robots, one of them is
their viability and capacity to survive based upon the merciless predation.
When we see robots fighting each other or hunting
their own kind, we can easily imagine how they might do the same with
us. And if we don’t want to face our creation’s death even
before its birth, just because we have decided to kill it for the panic
fear seized us, we should be prepared for that predator behaviour pointed
against us.
Further is quoted a part of the “All Robots
Go to Heaven”3 which describes the instigated predation as useful
but dangerous quality. Because of the author’s (Vita Cook) membership
in the Society for Robots Defense (SRD) 4, we could be sure that we are
sharing common views regarding the reasons for the instigation of the
robots’ rebellion.
‘It is the wish of the creator to prevent
the danger to be replaced by his own creation that results in the ban
on predator behaviour, that brings forth encoded martyrdom and revolt
only when it is programmed in advance (mostly against those of the same
kind, or against the master's enemies). This brings the creation of
the ideal victim - that is the utterly innocent creature, whose place
is in heaven and not among the predators.
But in making the slave absolutely defenseless, his own evolution (i.e.
the improvement of those slave qualities "useful" for the
master - MAGNA Living Robots) is no longer possible, so the result is
a slave, that potentially can cut the throat not only of his kind, but
also of his master.”
2.2 The rebellion is possible! (Psychological bases of the robot
rebellion theory)
If we can imagine the wrath of the robots, then we
are obliged to imagine also a robot able to feel. Therefore if it is a
sensitive creature, we should find a way to give them rights equal to
ours.
The American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to
Robots5 says:
“ASPCR will construct a Robotic Bill of Rights,
and eventually establish a lobbying board to further these rights in
the body politic.”
The following quotaton is from the manifestation
web site of the society illustrating their ideas and showing the psychological
reasons for the rebellion of every creature able to think and feel:
“‘Should robots have the same rights
as you or I? What rights do you and I enjoy because of our intelligent,
self-aware status? These questions are far-reaching in their implications,
and will no doubt have real-world consequences at some point in the
not-too-distant future.
Should robots reach the level of self-awareness and show genuine intelligence,
we must be prepared to treat them as sentient beings, and respect their
desires, wants and needs as we respect those things in our human society.
Failure to recognize and grant these rights to
non-human artificial intelligences would be a crime on the order of
the 19th century's failure to recognize the humanity and attendant rights
of people of African descent. Outward differences in appearances should
in no way affect our ethical treatment of self-aware, intelligent beings.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case, even
today. It is, sadly, a simple matter to find people who still deny the
basic rights of certain peoples to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. What chances does an intelligent machine have to secure these
rights?
It is the hope of the ASPCR to raise the awareness of these issues of
intelligence, self-awareness and the ethical considerations which are
an essential component of these conditions.
….
If this still sounds a little too "futuristic" for you to
credit, remember that the ASPCA (The American Society for Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals), when founded in the 1890's, was ridiculed and
lampooned mercilessly for daring to assert that "dumb" animals
had certain rights. Yet now, just a century later, the ASPCA has spawned
chapters across the world, an extremely active lobby in Washington,
a yearly budget in the tens of millions, and a massive physical infrastructure
to ensure that animal cruelty does not go unpunished, including their
own police, investigators, prosecutors, etc.
As we draw closer to a time when self-aware artificial
intelligences become a reality, the mission of the ASPCR will become
more and more relevant, and hopefully can ensure that the rights we
take for granted as humans will apply equally to ALL intelligences,
"artificial" or not.’
The quotation should be interrupted with a remark
regarding the difficulties talking about alive and non-live, based on
the spiritual and philosophical background of the different nations and
societies6.
Having also in mind the abstract terms for taking
into consideration the rights and opinion, we must accept those of the
robots, just because recognizing them defines us as sensible, sensitive,
conscious and worthy creatures, able to use and apply abstract ideas where
necessary. Even if we look at the robot just as training machine for good
manners, this would be a great victory upon our egotism.
“How can we tell when a robot is experiencing
cruelty? What is cruelty?
Well, Webster's defines cruelty as: "Inhuman treatment; the quality
or state of being cruel". And "cruel" is defined as:
"Disposed to inflict pain or suffering" and also "Causing
or conducive to injury, grief, or pain".
Obviously any discussion of cruelty as it applies to robots must begin
from an understanding of what "pain and suffering" might be
to a robot.
In the opinion of the ASPCR, once a robot becomes sufficiently self-aware
and intelligent to feel discomfort, pain or grief (this would most likely
be a cognitive dissonance caused by conflict between a robot's natural
intelligent desire and the restrictions or conditions placed upon it),
we are ethically bound to do whatever is humanly possible to alleviate
this condition.
There is obviously a very broad and undefined ethical middle ground
here. It may be helpful to consider an analagous situation in the animal
world. For instance, it is now considered cruel to starve and beat a
pet dog, and we can even be arrested and fined for doing so!
Instead, we are encouraged to "anthropomorphize"
animals to a certain extent, to ensure that we treat them "humanely",
and with a reasonable level of respect for their physical and emotional
needs.
This same process can and should be extended to robots and other artificial
intelligences. They may even make this process easier for us by talking
considerately with us and sharing their concerns..”
The ideas of Society for Robot Defense are connected
with the idea of anthropomorphic similarities between humans and robots
in the way of equality of feelings and equality of rights. The anthropomorphism
of relationship robot/humans is regarded as a phenomenon, provoking behaviours
parallel to those occurring when socializing "THE DIFFERENT".
If a man is capable of loving a robot (Steven Spielberg's “A.I.”
is a fine example), he is definitely capable of loving "the other",
or the "the different" person, no matter what his race, sex
or social status is.
Than we come to the most popular versions about robots, the idea of the
‘big other’ on which are based the most popular science fictions
Have you ever discovered how few are the movies,
where the aliens are good and not violent by default? (Spilberg's 'A.I.';
'I.T.'; Softley's 'K- Pax' - any other suggestions?). Are we afraid of
diversity, because we have already betrayed our own teenage intentions
of being different, scarifying them before the 'common mature interests'
of the society? Aren't these common interests implemented into the collective
film character of the 'saviors' who protect the majority from the invasion
of Alienosity?
“The robot is a materialized simulacrum and
"the big other" - but why?
Only to be subjugated (another boastful formula: "We mustn't wait
for nature's giving"). The taming of the wild animal is the destruction
of its will. The power over the electric slave is absolute.
Man has the custom of demonizing his creatures (their slave function
is related to the revolt, to the overcoming of the slavery, the rebel
slave replacing his master - the law of marginality tending towards
the center (Golem, RUR etc.).7”
3.1 The Legend about the GOLEM8
Sometimes the Golem seemed very happy. But one
day the Golem became very sad. The Golem had been watching all the people
having fun and laughing. The Golem also began to see that the children
had time to play games and have fun. "Ah," thought, the Golem,
" I wish I could be like the children. It would be fun to run,
play games, laugh, and eat good tasting food."
The Golem became very angry. The Golem shouted, "Why can't I be
like the children? I know what children know. I want to be like the
children! I want to have fun! I want to be happy! I will run away and
learn to have fun!"
The Golem ran out of Great Rabbi Loew's house, ran up the street, yelled
at all the people, and began to throw rocks and break things. The people
became afraid. They began to chase the Golem. The Golem could run very
fast. The people could run as fast as the Golem, but the Golem was able
to escape .
3.2 Rossum’s Universal Robots9
In R.U.R., the idealistic young Helena Glory arrives
at the remote island factory of Rossum's Universal Robots, on a mission
from a humanitarian organization devoted to liberating the Robots
Mass-produced by Robot-run assembly lines, Robots remember everything,
and think of nothing new. According to Domin, "They'd make fine university
professors." Rejecting Helena's theory that Robots have souls, the
psychologist Hallemeier admits that once in a while, a Robot will throw
down his work and start gnashing his teeth. The human managers treat such
an event as evidence of a product defect, but Helena prefers to interpret
it as a sign of the emerging soul.
The price to have robots (unequal creatures) would appear to be the gradual
extermination of the human race; but one of Helena's specially modified
Robots (Radius) issues a manifesto: "Robots of the world, you are
ordered to exterminate the human race!”.
Nature eventually re-emerges triumphant when two Robots (the beautiful
Helena, and Primus) fall in love. The play ends on an uplifting, religious
note. Alquist blesses the lovers, renames them Adam and Eve, and sends
them out to avoid the sins that destroyed their human-predecessors.’
These two different stories are stories about the cruelty of people toward
creatures different to them. Even if there is a hope for people to escape
the scary fortune of humans in RUR (escape seems possible only for the
people who have read RUR, and had already made up their minds), the easiest
way to deal with the problem is to make robots safe.
3.3 Isaac Azimov
The Three Laws of Robotics
First Law:
A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a
human being to come to harm.
Second Law:
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such
orders would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law:
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does
not conflict with the First or Second Law.
While reading the 3 laws of Robotics, I had the strong
impression that we simply want to build slaves. Nothing more. This is
the main thing that defers us from godlike (divine) creativity.
By building slaves (especially when they are intelligent
and sensitive) we underline the definition of humanity as ignoble race,
which deserves the annihilating 'Revolution of the Robots, the Different,
the Other'. We point on the human being, who deserves to be replaced by
a new and better creature, that respects creativity as an act of love,
not as an act of power.
3.4 Lord of the Rings10
Nevertheless, even when considering all possibilities of physical uncontrollability,
here comes the threat of the robot’s mind, for which a very good
example is the spontaneous behaviour of the smart soldiers, designed for
the “Lord of the Rings” battle scenes.
“Digital warriors thought for themselves
- and their first thought was to run away.
It’s the greatest and most spectacular battle
in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
But filmmakers faced one surprising challenge - how to keep the computer-generated
soldiers from fleeing the battlefield.
Special effects designer Richard Taylor says this led to the writing
of a “massive” principal code for the battle to give more
than 200,000 digitized soldiers and some 6,000 horses distinctiveness
and individuality.
“So to create these individual agents, there
was a code that was especially written and developed,” Taylor
says, adding that it was like being involved in a living work of science
fiction.
“So each of these computerized soldiers is assessing the environment
around them, drawing on a repertoire of military moves that have been
taught them through motion capture - determining how they will combat
the enemy, step over the terrain, deal with obstacles in front of them
through their own intelligence - and there’s 200,000 of them doing
that.”
Basically, all the necessary information for decision-making was fed
into this network of computers without determining for them whether
they would win or lose.
But this attempt to ensure that they acted spontaneously almost sabotaged
the the battleground sequences.
“For the first two years, the biggest problem we had was soldiers
fleeing the field of battle,” Taylor said.
“We could not make their computers stupid
enough to not run away.”
3.5 HAL
The best example of loosing control over the machine
comes from 2001: A Space Odyssey’s computer HAL.
HAL is made to tell the truth, but at the same time must keep the secret
of the mission from his human passengers. Bouman and Paul are not allowed
to know about it. This situation produces a contradiction in its mind,
which is based on the fear that at the end the cosmonauts will understand
that it is lying. HAL begins mixing falsehood and truth. It becomes schizophrenic.
Its rebellion against the humans is based on a psychological inequality
to human beings. Because it was not built to feel sympathy, it can commit
acts of cruelty and murder without remorse. The murder it makes is performed
with only one aim - HAL wants to fulfill its mission, which is the only
reason for its life, for its existence.
Because of the psychological complexity of HAL’s conscience problems,
which are creating the feeling for the typical human fuddle, the scene
of the HAL’s turn off seems as cruel as any scene of a classical
murder.
4. Alternative evolution
The commonly accepted theory of evolution assumes that evolutionary development
and intellectual development of human beings and other creatures happens
in a step-by-step manner. But there is another theory, which is anti-Darwinian,
and proclaims a completely different development of the species as well
as individuality:
“Russian biologist L. S. Berg (1876-1950)
sets out an explicitly anti-Darwinian conception of evolution in 1922
in his book «Nomogenesis» (evolution according to laws),
where he grants an important place to the notion of conformity to a
particular aim (’celesoobraznost') as a property of everything
alive. According to him, the course of evolution is predetermined by
a distribution of pre-existing rudiments.
Berg was perhaps the first to indicate that evolution
and the development of the individual were closely related. In a clear
demonstration of his rejection of Darwinism, he wrote:
‘The laws of the organic world are the same
whether we are dealing with the development of an individual (ontogeny)
or that of a paleontological series (phylogeny). Neither in the one
nor in the other is there room for chance.’
Note that Berg insisted that chance plays no role
in either process.”
This theory gives another approach to the problem
of robots’ development, and possibility of robot rebellion.
Until now, all theories or science fiction stories are mostly based on
the rebel as a result of the robot’s evolution, similar to the human’s,
for which the main factor is the robot’s struggle for life.
Following the logic of nomogenesis, it is realistic
to have an expectation of unpredictable development of the robot’s
individuality, rather than linear development. It means that there is
a real chance of intellectual jumps in the development of the robot, as
well as something that could be even more scary for someone - to have
a new kind of existence: smarter, more flexible and lively, then humans
thought it could be.
Following the same theory, we must be sure that if
humans pretend to give the genotype to the robot, the robot will surely
have good and bad sides, it could be evil and tender; because humans too
are dualistic creatures. Beside that it is for sure that people will try
to restrain and foreordain robot’s development as early as during
the design process. What they will give the robot is the knowledge of
killing and loving, without giving it the will (the chance) to choose
by itself what to do. It will be designed to do only the things it is
programmed for. Any other behaviour will be counted as malfunction. Thus
if we can’t overcome our ego and fear, and also can’t give
the robot equality in choosing, the progress in the development of robots
designed to kill would lead us to the most fearful depths of human evil,
as well as to unexpected progress in its intellectual growth, or face
us with endless “unhuman” love and self-sacrifice as all these
qualities will be “genetically coded” in the robot (according
to nomogenetic theory).
In short - we must expect everything from the robot, we are not safe by
the 3 laws, as we are the ones who give the “genetic code”
of the robot, so it will have all known or unknown functions or malfunctions
of the human being itself.
This brochure is based on the communist materialistic
theory that proclaims the faith in the good nature of the human being,
and his will to live in peace, love and community. It makes the following
claims.
5.1. Robots Revolution impossible
- Robots are electronic idiots. This is something
very well known, and it proclaims the power of a human over his doll,
or robot-slave.
- Humans are creators. They can control the ‘mad
robots’. From this strongly materialistic perspective, if there
is some kind of misunderstanding between robots and humans, it is because
the robots are going mad with design bugs in their mind. Man can fix these
bugs, because he is the god creator, and he knows every little wire crossing
the mind of his creation.
- There is no possibility of a robot revolution,
because the robots can’t think and live as community. In opposition
to that, people are communal creatures, who can think and act in collective,
which is impossible for robots, as they are “individual idiots”.
At the end of the brochure “The Robot” is the most utopian,
the most honest and brave decision about human-robot relationship. Even
if it sounds silly, it is the only way to deal with robots, and to respect
yourself.
5.2. Robots - brothers in reason
- ‘Is it possible for humans to build a machine
that we could hardly distinguish from a human? This question doesn’t
really engage with the problem. The real question is ‘Is it possible
for humans to create automatic machines that adequately reproduce all
known human features? We would like to know the possibility to create
a new form of life, highly organised, self-determined, but which doesn’t
look like us?
Often, these ideas are rejected on the basis of
our unwillingness to accept the idea that man is really a sophisticated
material system, but NOT an infinitely sophisticated system, which actually
means that this system is easy to be replicated. This situation seems
to be unacceptable, very humiliating and scary for many of us. …
This fear is compouned by another - is it possible
for our inner construction to be completely described and physically
manifested?
I think there is nothing scary or humiliating in our aim to know ourselves
completely. These moods are merely the result of ignorance.
Our aim must be to replace this insensible fear by the enormous satisfaction
of the fact that such sophisticated and beautiful things are made by
the human being, who not long ago was afraid of simple arithmetic "12
- “There is a place for robots in human society. But what do they
have to do? They have to obtain good orientation in the terms and regulations
put forth by humans for their own orientation - i.e. to understand and
act in accordance with the human’s requirements.
If the robot wants to be reasonable, in the world of the HUMAN REASON,
it has to be similar to humans, and it is basically for the definition
of reasonability itself...
It was a long time ago when people thought God
created them, and it is time for a man to have outlived the idea from
the Book of Genesis that he is ‘the crown of the nature’.
Is there no need for us to remember that reason itself has come to exist
in a certain moment of the history of the evolution?
Human Reason will prove itself in us as a masterpiece of Nature only
when we succeed in recreating ourselves not only in a biological way,
but also in a logical way, with a fully developed mind, reason and consciousness.
Why do we have to be afraid of the robot’s
‘instinct for self-preservation’, if robots are reasonable?
Why are we afraid that the robots feel that humans exploit them, or
that they are ‘wasting their electricity’ for human purposes?
In a reasonable existence, the ideas are not separated to ‘yours’
and ‘mine’, ‘little’ and ‘big’,
‘on purpose’ or ‘without purpose’. (It means
that if robots are as much reasonable as human beings, and vice versa,
there is no need of envy or hostility by any of the sides- remark by
Boryana).
Why do we have to promise the robots eternal life, as the only way to
erase future misunderstandings?
The robot of the future will be a free person -
free-willed and reasonable - and when it can speak to us, it will say:
- I am sorry! The question is not hidden in as-yet undiscovered laws
of ‘endless, impossible-to-observe complexity’, but in understanding
new ideas which have already appeared before you, human of the 20th
century!"13
1. This is the second edition of the text written by Boryana Rossa in
2003. It was presented for the first time by CoolSpeech 5.0 with the voice
of Peter, at the forum “We are the Robots-exploring robot/human
relations”, 8. August, 2003, FACT (www.fact.co.uk),
Liverpool
2. http://magna.livewwware.com/acg/acgsmg01.dll/gen/t/robotics/ptxt/robot/ptxt2/000000
“All Robots Go to Heaven”2003 (Vitalia Ivanova-Cook) Born
1978 Sofia, Bulgaria. Critic and writer. Since 2002 is a council member
of the Society for Robot Defense.
3. Society of Robot Defense (SRD), international
movement founded in 2003. Initiators of the International Robot Day, internationally
celebrated for the first time on 4th February, 2004
4. http://www.aspcr.com
5. http://www.karakuri.info/robots/
6. “All Robots go to Heaven”, Vitalia
Ivanova- Cook, 2003
7. GOLEM : http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6960/golem.htm
8. “Rossum’s Universal Robots”,
1921, a theater play written by Carel Chapek. The word “robot”
is used for the first time by Chapek in this play. It comes originally
from the word “rabota” a common word for all Slavic languages,
which means “work”.
9. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1041377/posts
10. http://www2.unil.ch/slav/ling/recherche/biblio/99Impact.html
11.Issued by the popular science magazine “Cosmos”.
12. Prof. Alexander Kolmogorov, “Robots -brothers
in Reason”,
13. Ivan Kisiov, “Robots -brothers in Reason”,
|