On the subject of robots, just what is a robot? This essay poses the idea that we’ve been decieved by our anthropomorphic minds to think of them having at least a vague human characteristic. A better way, it is proposed, is to think of robots as, ” a device, really an integrated suite of devices, that can replace a human being in a particular task.” We are surrounded by robots already… Welcome, Robot Overlords!
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Posted by dugh daren in Interesting, Robots, Technology
Related Posts:
TERA Robots
Rat Brains Drive Robots
Top Five: Robots
Rules for Robots
Robots Protest in Madison
This entry is filed under Interesting, Robots, Technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
3 Responses to “What Are Robots?”
Leave a Reply
November 4th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
The terms slave and master have always held somewhat of an interesting relationship to machines . . . slavery implies a sense of removed freedom, whereas obviously there is no case for this with machines, or suites of devices, or robots, or whatever you’d prefer to call them. There is a subservience implied in the term that can’t be said to exist; devices, robots, etc. are tools; google is a tool; ookee is a tool; a car is a tool; a robotic arm that builds a car is a tool. The move to define them as otherwise might be seen as a way of removing guilt of the creator of the tool; as in the case of the military machines, if something goes wrong, it is a problem with robots, not with people who are designing ways to kill other people. Yes, someone would be blamed, someone would be fired, and the project would be set back. But defining the failure, if it were to happen, as a robotic failure necessarily means that the project isn’t the problem, and from that it’s only a short move to say that the project should continue, better.
Robots can be poorly built, but they can’t rebel; there would be no reason to build a robot with a consciousness, as at that point you’ve merely substituted a human with a metallic human. Arguably, a robot that has a consciousness is poorly built, but if it rebels, it is the fault of its inventor for giving it both the reasoning and the tools to rebel; it is not some freak accident. Again, it is a move away from responsibility to define robots in any way other than as tools, tools that can be poorly made or poorly used.
November 4th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Robots are, indeed, tools. I would exempt OOKEE because I have a personal affinity but I would probably be wrong.
Just a note, researchers have been trying to create artificial intelligence for a very long time now. If they do (or even come very close) it won’t be long before they but those sentiences into a robot so that it can experience the world. Once they do, is it still a tool? Do we call it a robot or would we have to create a new word for them? Would they be slaves, equals, or something else?
November 4th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
I would ask, first, what the goal of that project is. Is it to see if it can be done? That is a dangerous project, not because it’s playing God (an idea that I have some issues with), but because it’s creating a situation that can so easily spiral out of control. Robots, as tools, are built to be exploited. It’s the nature of modern robotics, and as they are tools, I have no problem with that. There is no “marxist analysis” of non-sentient tool use (or at least no valid one . . . postmodern philosophy is, to use a strange euphemism, inventive); however, give it sentience, and it will likely realize that it has been created to be exploited, but that it is by definition stronger. A robotic revolution is going to look very different from any previous revolution, and the resulting society is going to be pretty far from ideal. At that point, you’re talking about robotic master overlords or some equally now-plausible science fiction reality. I would ask that a clarification be made about the lines between artificial intelligence and sentience. A robot that can learn is one thing. A robot that is self-aware is another. A robot capable of acquiring new skill sets without further programming is a smart robot, a smart tool. A robot capable of identifying itself as an agent within the world is, quite literally, something else — why not just use the word android, it seems to fit. This self-aware agent is a whole new monster, because self-aware agents will inevitably develop a notion of self-interest. It is at this point that almost everything in my above post becomes moot. To address your question, I would like to use the word I have already introduced, androids, as they are not robots, though the term would be used. They would undoubtedly not begin as equals, although it would be interesting to see their evolution throughout society. Perhaps (and I realize the thoroughly non-academic nature of this move) Futurama wasn’t too far off in having sentient robots who were their own unique class, mostly relegated to service, but still undoubtedly thinking and independent entitites.
Since much of this conversation is just about impossible to have without heavily referencing science fiction anyway, now seems like an appropriate time to reference Asimov’s three rules. One the one hand, in comparison to the kind of programming required for sentience (I would imagine), programming something like the three rules would not prove to be difficult. However, Asimov himself made a career out of exploiting any and all loopholes he could find in the three laws. The military is gonna have problems with the first law, without some heavy editing, and who besides the military is going to ever get the funding to develop robotics? The loophole in that situation is enough to recognize the dangers of what I have called androids.
This is getting unwieldy, and I’m getting disorganized. Perhaps it’s off to The Rookee for more.