The robot revolution blurs the line between man and machine

https://www.ft.com/content/98cc085a-62f6-11e7-8814-0ac7eb84e5f1

So, I turned to Sophia and asked: “Are you going to destroy us?” “Not if you’re nice to me,” she replied. It’s always a little unnerving talking with a non-human, as I did at a recent FT125 Forum event, but it is an experience we are going to have to grow used to as the robot revolution unfolds.

Sophia was well programmed to respond to human fear of machines but many of her answers were a little clunky. What was mesmerising was her lifelike facial features. Capable of smiling, frowning, scowling, winking, Sophia was exceptional at mimicking human expressions thanks to some clever nanotechnology and artificial connective tissue.

Humanoid robots are already being used as security guards, nursing assistants, teachers and sex toys. Within 10 years such robots will surely be a lot smarter than today and in some respects may be all but indistinguishable from humans. Is this a good idea? There is a persuasive school of thought that argues not. The line between man and machine should never be smudged because it risks dehumanising humans. Plus, as the joke runs: “You shouldn’t anthropomorphise computers because they don’t like it.”

The philosopher Daniel Dennett is an eloquent advocate of this line of reasoning. He argues that we should regard robots as nothing more than technological tools or digital slaves designed to do our express bidding. It is dangerous to endow them with human characteristics they do not possess. To kit them out with “cutesy human stuff” amounts to false advertising. “We want to be sure that anything we build is going to be a systemological wonderbox, not a moral agency,” he told me earlier this year. “It’s not responsible, it doesn’t have goals. You can unplug it any time you want. And we should keep it that way.”

The distinctions between man and machine may be clear in a seminar room but are a lot more blurry in the outside world. Millions of people have electronic pacemakers and hip implants and so could technically be counted as cyborgs. Collaborative robots (or cobots) have been working in harmony with humans on the factory floor. Disembodied digital assistants, such as Siri, Cortana and Alexa, are “talking” with millions of us every day.

Sophia’s creator, David Hanson, the founder and chief executive of Hanson Robotics, makes two main arguments as to why we should continue developing humanoid robots, one playful, the other deadly serious. The first is that humanoid robots are entertaining, fun, artistic creations that can help forge new “pathways of communication”. They are, as he puts it, like computer animations in physical shape, the next figurative art form. Just as Disney cartoonists exaggerate facial features to trigger supernormal stimuli in the brain, so humanoid robots can be made to appear more human than humans. “We are neurohacking people. That’s what artists do,” he says. His second argument is that we want computer systems to understand human values, cultures, and behaviours so that we can create “moral machines” to minimise the dangers of artificial intelligence going awry.

Algorithms in self-driving cars, for example, may indirectly determine life and death. That is why some car companies have employed philosophers to devise ethical settings for their driving systems. Mr Hanson is literally putting a face on AI systems to increase mutual understanding. Computers use natural language processing to communicate with humans. But a lot of human communication is non-verbal, depending on facial expressions and body movements. Robots can act as AI learning platforms to absorb our ways. In that sense, creating humanoid robots is a provocative act, designed to trigger debate about the scope of machine intelligence. AI-enabled robots make visible what is all too often invisible. “If we develop AI and it’s just behind the scenes in a big server farm, it’s alien to humans,” he says.

Much of Mr Hanson’s talk seems way out there and is freighted with its own moral concerns — humanoid robots that can be used for benign purposes can have malign ends too. Mapping the contours between humans and machines is becoming one of the most intriguing, and at times creepy, challenges of our times. Huge amounts of money are also to be made from exploring this interface. But perhaps the greatest contribution humanoid robots can make is to force us to consider what really distinguishes man from machine. What makes us truly human?

———-

“we should regard robots as nothing more than technological tools or digital slaves designed to do our express bidding. It is dangerous to endow them with human characteristics they do not possess.”

yeah..

“Millions of people have electronic pacemakers and hip implants and so could technically be counted as cyborgs.”

really?

“Algorithms in self-driving cars, for example, may indirectly determine life and death. That is why some car companies have employed philosophers to devise ethical settings for their driving systems. Mr Hanson is literally putting a face on AI systems to increase mutual understanding.”

401

Advertisements

~ by seeker401 on July 24, 2017.

3 Responses to “The robot revolution blurs the line between man and machine”

  1. Algorithms to determine life or death calculations was something I had not given thought to, but it makes sense those calculations would need to take place.

    The Will Smith character in “I-Robot” hated robots because of a life/death calculation between him and a little girl (the robot picked him and not the girl). The emotional factor is what lead scientists to think of a “better” morally responsible robot – which only led to robots who also “hated” and were more violent “better”. Then the mainframe of all the robots calculated all humans must die in order to make life better.

    The philosophers who are trying to build the AI’s, like Searle, do so in the main field philosophy of the day, which is in linguistics. There calculations and ethical models may not be far off from “I-Robot” or sci-fi writer and philosopher Isaac Asimov (which I believe his laws of robotics was in the movie “I-Robot”).

    Not that the future is “I-Robot”, but the philosophy people have access to does not provide much comfort and definitely not a better world.

  2. Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: