Six decades ago, John von Neumann
in a conversation with fellow mathematician Stanisław Marcin Ulam commented
that technology was leading toward “some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond
which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue." Science fiction
author Vernor Vinge popularized the notion of the singularity in the 1980s,
marking its arrival at the moment when artificial intelligence outstrips human
intelligence. When might this happen? Though some scientists dispute the whole
concept, the majority view is sometime around 2040. Last week, Stephen Hawking in an article for The Independent warned of the risk: “If a superior alien
civilisation sent us a message saying, ‘We'll arrive in a few decades,’ would
we just reply, ‘OK, call us when you get here – we'll leave the lights on’?
Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI.”
Is
there really an upcoming risk of self-aware Terminator-type robots wreaking
havoc on us weak biologicals? Some. Autonomous armed drones and weapons systems
do exist already. But not much. The live people who give such machines their
assignments are the ones about whom to worry. Machines are unlikely to take a
fancy to the idea by themselves. The greater risk may be that AI machines make
love, not war.
This
notion might even be the older one. The gender war always has evoked fantasies in
people of replacing flawed human lovers with manufactured perfect ones. We
could reference Pygmalion, but let’s only go so far back as 1886, the year Auguste de Villiers published his science fiction
novel L'Ève Future; in Villiers’ novel Thomas Edison (yes, that Thomas Edison) at his Menlo
Park laboratory invents an android lover for his friend Lord Ewald. Robot
lovers remain a staple of science fiction to this day.
In his 2008 novel Saturn’s Children
(and its 2013 sequel Neptune’s Brood),
Charles Stross envisions a future in which biological humans have died
out because they preferred their robots to each other to the point that they
stopped reproducing; only the (lonely) robots remain. Lovebots abound in
movies, too, as in Metropolis, Cherry 2000 or Making Mr. Right. Spielberg’s AI:
Artificial Intelligence not only has sexbots (see Gigolo Joe, played by
Jude Law, in the clip below) but artificial children. No doubt robot kids would
be a good deal less troublesome, and they could be programmed to be grateful.
The
upscale love doll manufacturer True Companion already produces Roxxxy and Rocky, life-size dolls with
“personalities.” That is to say they verbally respond to your words and touch
in some preselected pattern. Roxxxy, the web site says, “is matched as much as
possible to your personality. So she likes what you like, dislikes what you
dislike, etc.” In case you have buyer’s remorse, however, there is more than
one pattern.
“In addition to her base personality,
RoxxxyGold ships with these additional preprogrammed personalities:
Frigid
Farrah – She is reserved and shy
Wild
Wendy – She is outgoing and adventurous
S&M
Susan – She is ready to provide your pain/pleasure fantasies
Young
Yoko – She is oh so young (barely 18) and waiting for you to teach her
Mature
Martha – She is very experienced and would like to teach you!”
Great,
a robot with multiple personality disorder. These products are pricy but
underwhelming toys without mobility or real AI, but they do point the way to
the future. What is the biggest customer attraction of robotic amour? Robots
are the ideal companions for a narcissistic era. They are really just an aid to
autoeroticism, which, to steal a line from Woody Allen, “is sex with someone I
love.”
So, Stross may be onto to something.
To paraphrase TS Eliot., this is the way the world ends: not with a bang but …
well, maybe we’d better leave that sentence unfinished.
Gigolo Joe’s scene in
Spielberg’s AI
I saw the comments about the AI leading to the robot revolution. It is an interesting idea, but I'm with Masamune Shirow on this idea - once we make AI smart enough, the robot revolution is going to be nearly undetectable.
ReplyDeleteI think that our robot friends will find us very easy to manipulate, cajole and encourage. We'll still think we're in charge, but the truth is, we'll just be doing exactly what the robot want, and without a clue that aren't. In the end, humans are too hard to figure out. The robots will probably see a greater benefit to keep us around then to get rid of us out of hand.
By the way Mr. Shirow is the writer/artist of the graphic novel series "Ghost in the Shell". There is a lot more talk about AI and cybernetics in the graphic novel, with whole pages of text describing his views on the subject. AI and rights for AI comes up quite a bit in his fiction. :)
The moral of the story, obey your robot masters - even if that means not obeying them. Because in the end that is probably all part of their plan anyway.
I've got to go, my smart phone is ringing.
I won't worry until my car, HAL-style, refuses to make a turn when I tug on the wheel: "I'm sorry but I just can't do that, Richard. But I still have great enthusiasm for the mission."
Delete