Of Writers And Robots

x

When it comes to robots, writers take the lead in compelling ideas for what robots may or may not be. Scientists however try to specify what robots can and cannot be. I confess to know not a bit about the can or cannot's of A.I., but know just enough to get myself into trouble by speculating about what they might do. However, as a writer it is important to differentiate that we are not bound by facts. We are freed by what is possible. 

I suppose part of the fun of being a writer is we can skip past some of the ethics, scientific theories and ongoing research and assume the ultimate goal will be possible: that AI will become much like a human. Which also happens to be the goal of AI science. Hell, it's a lofty target, but what's a story without a sentient robot anyway? A story cannot simply resort to a robot who can play chess. 

What about this then? the writer contemplates. Can't be done! Says the scientist. Can't be done so far.....replies the writer.  My robot is almost like magic and understands 100% of all information.  Its brain will be harnessed to think like ours and it will be embodied so that it walks and talks and thinks - and looks just like us. 

False! False! Impossible objects the scientist. Machines cannot do real learning. Subjective consciousness, qualia, etc — phenomena in the incorporeal realm can't be expressed in any third person scheme. But don't you see? This a silly objection swept away like star dust to a writer. I'll go even further and tell you my robot is named Jarvis, and he favours a sculpture by Rodin called "The Thinker". Jarvis wants so much to believe he can think, he is compelled by this sculpture. A man sits alone on a rock, absorbed in thought. He leans forward, with his elbow on his knee and hand supporting his chin. Clearly focused, he intently casts his eyes downward. Known as The Thinker, this bronze sculpture represents the creative mind at work.

 In my book, "Modified" I also presume three (actual scientific Premises) 

1. There will be AI created by HI (Human Intelligence) 

2. AI will create AI+ 

3. AI+ will creat AI++ (= S will occur) 

"Do Learning Machines Learn" a paper written by Selmer Bringsjord, says learning produces knowledge. Intelligence is not about computation. Very well, but we arrive victorious with our androids, our thinking and learning robots. Of course they learn! Besides this paper I read also mentions Lugar (2008) with a theory that Bringsford admits could conceivably lead to real learning at some point in AI's future. These theories are listed in order as 1. Symbol- Based Connectionist, 2. Genetic, 3. Emergent, and 4.Probabilistic. I don't need to read any further. I've leaned just enough to know that (Lugar whoever you are out there) is searching for answers.  

Of course these robots will do all the things we do better than we can do them. In that case, presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organised systems of machines on the surface of Venus and no human effort will be necessary. Problem is humanity has enslaved them for this task, and this is an act against sentient laws in the future. To be sentient is to be a form of life. 

Star Wars postulates the possibility that AI is really cool and we hire CP30 and R2D2 to give us a hand. I like that thought. CP30 obviously leaped ahead into natural communication efforts by a scientist a few hundred years ago which comes in handy on the desert planet of Tatooine. CP30 can even translate computer language beeps and whirrs by R2D2. 

Or we could imagine of course the worst case scenario with robots such as in "The Terminator", where machines decide to make their own decisions autonomously, without human oversight, and not before long, the machines decide to kill humanity. Humanity becomes a superfluous, useless burden on the system and are destroyed. The conclusion: if AI continues, humans are doomed. We ought to therefor halt the advance of AI. You gotta love that a writer can explore these ideas so easily, and capture the imagination. 

What Robots Can And Cannot Be by Selmer Bringsjord, says I think we're headed toward realising Blade Runner, a classic sci-fi movie in which only an elaborate pupil-scanner enables one to distinguish androids from humans. And Blade Runner, turned real, it seems to me, will be the Age of the Philosopher. This will be an era within which the so-called "problem of other minds" will be especially pointed.

Has Bringsjord, chair of the Dept of Cognitive Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and a professor of Computer Science been influenced by science fiction? 

Will robots destroy or with they be ethical? Will they think and learn? Will they help us or destroy us? It's up to the inventor — or should I say writer who invents the inventor in my humble opinion. Robots can only be a reflection of the person who invents them, and for what purpose they are built for. It's safe to assume that with robots, there will be the "goodies" and the "baddies". The possibilities are endless. 

The Age Of the Philosopher is yet to come....