January 27, 2012
Machine Morality and Human Responsibility
Charles T. Rubin in The New Atlantis:
This year marks the ninetieth anniversary of the first performance of the play from which we get the term “robot.” The Czech playwright Karel Čapek’s R.U.R. premiered in Prague on January 25, 1921. Physically, Čapek’s robots were not the kind of things to which we now apply the term: they were biological rather than mechanical, and humanlike in appearance. But their behavior should be familiar from its echoes in later science fiction — for Čapek’s robots ultimately bring about the destruction of the human race.
Before R.U.R., artificially created anthropoids, like Frankenstein’s monster or modern versions of the Jewish legend of the golem, might have acted destructively on a small scale; but Čapek seems to have been the first to see robots as an extension of the Industrial Revolution, and hence to grant them a reach capable of global transformation. Though his robots are closer to what we now might call androids, only a pedant would refuse Čapek honors as the father of the robot apocalypse.
Today, some futurists are attempting to take seriously the question of how to avoid a robot apocalypse. They believe that artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous robots will play an ever-increasing role as servants of humanity. In the near term, robots will care for the ill and aged, while AI will monitor our streets for traffic and crime. In the far term, robots will become responsible for optimizing and controlling the flows of money, energy, goods, and services, for conceiving of and carrying out new technological innovations, for strategizing and planning military defenses, and so forth — in short, for taking over the most challenging and difficult areas of human affairs.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 02:46 AM | Permalink




















Comments
Meanwhile, chemists and microbiologists are pointing out that machines came first, then "learned" to reproduce themselves.
Following that phase of the Big Bang, organic essence clothed the machines, and voilà cyborgs spread across the Earth.
Lots of science friction over which came first, the chicken or the egg machine.
Posted by: Dredd | Jan 27, 2012 9:46:58 AM
It's not that "machines came first". It's just that random fluctuations of inorganic molecules happened to produce other molecules that could reproduce themselves and these became more and more complex under the selection pressure of evolution. Life is a kind a anti-entropy fluke, but never violates entropy because it is extremely wasteful. I recommend "The Atheist's Guide to Reality" by Alexander Rosenberg.
Posted by: reader | Jan 27, 2012 10:01:25 AM
reader,
From my link you did not read, which you should have before conflating my comment:
"Our cells, and the cells of all organisms, are composed of molecular machines. These machines are built of component parts, each of which contributes a partial function or structural element to the machine. How such sophisticated, multi-component machines could evolve has been somewhat mysterious, and highly controversial." Professor Lithgow said."
and:
"Dr Clarke said: “There are a lot of fundamental questions about the origins of life and many people think they are questions about biology. But for life to have evolved, you have to have a moment when non-living things become living – everything up to that point is chemistry."
It has nothing to do with atheism, it is cosmology.
Posted by: Dredd | Jan 27, 2012 11:23:22 AM
Not that mysterious.
As Rosenberg writes,
"Occasionally, these relatively stable molecules can be templates for copies of themselves...the process is familiar in crystal growth. Chemically building these structures molecule by molecule is remarkable in itself...what is truly amazing is that the structures assemble themselves"
Posted by: reader | Jan 27, 2012 11:51:02 AM
Post a comment