That thing over to the right is a robot…a quadruped…and one of the fastest in the world.
And of high interest to the military.
Reason? Because when you take off a couple of hundred pounds of packs, the robot, which has an onboard engine to power it, makes a dandy mobile weapons platform or battlefield surveillance drone.
And that gets me back to a childhood where I read every scrap of science fiction I could get my hands on, because deep down inside, robots are (and were) a major fascination.
Let’s cut to the chase, though, because the precision of our collective thinking will define future choices in terms of policy.
I have, on several occasions been less than 100% precise in my language use about robots and often lump them into the same bit-bucket as robotics and the evolution of the “replacement for your bag of skin filled with bones that presently passes for human bodies.
Good news and bad here: The human body comes with a whole range of sensual pleasures such as food, sex, sound for the sake of art, eyes to behold majestic scenery, and so forth.
The Kurzweilian future envisions a world where the line between humans changes up a bit. A robotic arm here, an artificial leg there, a nano-tube artificial lung, and first thing you know, the major parts have been replaced and we begin to become something else.
Reader Keith called me out, on a further level of distinction, and I’d like to share this with you because it is very good insight into a whole range of problems describing the evolving world of possibilities and how we use language amongst ourselves to talk about it.
Specifically, he’s worried about precision when it comes to discussion about robots becoming “aware.”
“George,
Not to “pick nits,” but isn’t “self-awareness” actually better characterized as “other-awareness”?
Humans (and smarter animals…you should meet my parrot) are completely self-absorbed until they realize that there are entities “out there” which are separate from themselves; but can be manipulated into serving the greater good of the newly aware “self” intelligence.
For instance, a healthy human child becomes aware of “the other” (usually Mom and those big soft serve feeding devices) at a very young age. The child quickly learns that the “other” can be manipulated into action to serve the self by screaming it’s foul little head off until this mysterious other arrives with pacification devices. Animals however take longer to develop this sense of self.
For instance, we’ve all (we country folk) seen a rooster “attack” its own image in a reflective surface. The bird has no sense that the reflection is “itself.”
However, IMHO, animals who are raised by humans develop this sense of self at a relatively early age (quicker than they do in the wild). You can accuse me of anthropomorphizing, however a parrot chick that is raised by hand understands “me” and “mine” very clearly.
They may think their people are birds; but they, like the infant, know that if you make enough noise, you will get that other to bring you objects of pacification. Mango is nesting so the “need” is balls of newspaper for her to shred for her nest box. She asks for them: “Mango want paper.” It’s not grammatically correct; but it is as clear as a bell.
I’ve blithered enough…I’m trying to be aware of the needs of the other…so I’ll hush.”
Hardly a blither! Indeed, if anything, it gets us to the problem which algometicians (new word, use it often and PayPal me a dime each time, please.; It’s the people who create algorithms for programmers…) and their acuity of thought.
On the one hand, we know that first robots will learn the basis of looking ahead x-number of moves. Then, with some work, they will develop weighted future-potential matrices and will be programmed to make choices based on a programmable set of “values.” From there, they will self-optimize, and presumably the onboard values will include high-standing for “others”.
As with any marketing analysis, we can see how the “new niches” will lay out, using this type of model. We can see not only where we are, where we might be going, but with a new Star Trek movie ion the works, it also gives us some keen insights into the Prime Directive.
Our guest level (and PhD level prof, by the way) who points out the importance of otherness as a key metric is exactly right.
A couple of reads on point are worth reviewing: “Chappie and the Future of Moral Machines” is one of them. The other is a note in Forbes about how “Clearpath Robotics Raises $11.1 Million To Build Ethical Industrial Robots.”
We run into all kinds of problems looking at the borderlines: A “thing” becomes a “machine” becomes a “robot” becomes a “human?”
That’s a stretch, but we need to begin looking at definitions carefully, since we are building and deploying all of them right now. A thing might be a load of iron ore, a machine might be an ingot of iron, a machine might be that iron changed into a production line part, a robot welding up product under computer control, and the human might be the banker behind the scenes, making sure to take enough “skim” so that no one else gets to make or keep as much money as he/she/they do.
Sounds like a pretty quirky thing to be talking about, but another articles out in the past week about a robotic arm that can reproduce itself is also very disconcerting to me and folks like reader Ken:
computer arm that replicates itself.. this is scary.. what is even scarier is the new software in the cloud seri Or Watson that answers questions.. I have an acquaintance that is a retired scientist and worked on robotics.. anyway in his retirement he is attempting to write his legacy in the form of a computer program that can be self recognizing and learning from what it encounters..For me that is a scary thing to have a computer that has access to the cloud..