Fear of Humanoid Robots (was Robot Survey)

[Elro]

Robotics Survey (http://www.teamdavinci.com/survey/)

"The purpose of this survey is to gauge the differing opinions of robotics and their role in society. All robots to be discussed in this survey are considered to be in perfect working order as designed. The first section just gathers information for statistical purposes. The second section gathers data related to your interest in the field of robotics. The third section deals with your opinion of presently hypothetical situations that may or may not become a reality."

The third section (opinions) is quite thought-provoking.

I'm posting this because the more input that they receive with this survey, the more accurate it will be, in theory. If you also found this interesting, please pass it on to others that might also contribute to the survey. I'm not running it, but I'm looking forward to seeing the results.

So, do you think robots will take over the world eventually? If so, in what way? Can they be stopped? Should they be stopped? How?

[Lee]

I think the line between robot and human will become ever more blurred until the notion of one dominating or destroying the other will sound quite ridiculous.

[mgb]

I think they are the future of human evolution. I suppose I saw that in AI at the end. Once robots are given emotions (not programmed responses but actual feeling) humans won't need to exist forever.

All the problems we talk about on this site are the reasons that humans won't last forever, we just take things to extremes and once we get there we stick out heads in our asses. Something like, say ants, don't have that problem. They function for the good of the many, which is why robots will have a better chance than us. Plus they can "live" for an indeterminate amount of time.

[Warrior413]

I think the line between robot and human will become ever more blurred until the notion of one dominating or destroying the other will sound quite ridiculous.
I agree. It's happened before in human cultures and even with the obvious differences between human and robot I think it's still essentially the same.

[coffeezombie]

I think designing artificial intelligence is dangerous. Why would humans try to create something better than them? Seems suicidal to me. I could definitely picture an "AI revolt" in the future.

[mgb]

I think designing artificial intelligence is dangerous. Why would humans try to create something better than them? Seems suicidal to me. I could definitely picture an "AI revolt" in the future.

It's like cloning. Seems inocuous enough when they start, then someone tries to get rich using it (ie. $50,000 for your old pet), then things get out of hand and before you know it, no more us.

People are already using AI, in inoculous ways for video games and stuff. It's just a matter of putting those highly developed programs into a machine.

[Miss Anthropic]

Sci-Fi nerds!

[Geoff]

It's not AI in computer games etc, it is merely the application of increasingly sophisticated rules, formulae and fuzzy logic to a situation. That isnt intelligence. It doesnt learn except for, again, under carefully designed rules and formulae.

-Geoff

[Lee]

I think that it will be a while until AI is created........It probably will not be so bad, It can't be any worse than what exists now. I would rather have Artificial Intelligence than the total lack of intellinegnce that exists today.

[coffeezombie]

The danger of artificial intelligence depends upon who is programming such intelligence. If I programmed artificial intelligences to act based upon my preconceptions, the world might be a dangerous place for sure, except for myself. Heh heh.

[mgb]

It's not AI in computer games etc, it is merely the application of increasingly sophisticated rules, formulae and fuzzy logic to a situation. That isnt intelligence. It doesnt learn except for, again, under carefully designed rules and formulae.

-Geoff

Isn't that all we do in the real world?

[Geoff]

It must be time for a Bender quote, now.

No, I dont think we merely fulfill my watered down AI definition in the human experience. Not when we have the 'N' type, anyway. That's an ability to see beyond our programming and discover something beyond our ruleset.

-Geoff

[Elro]

I think designing artificial intelligence is dangerous. Why would humans try to create something better than them? Seems suicidal to me.

In a word: curiosity. I agree, I don't think we should develop AI too much, but right now the leading idea is that, as we learn about AI, we're learning about how our own minds work. (Yet one could argue that for most things you need to know how your own minds work to get AI to work.) In any case, even if the research were to be repressed, it would probably eventually be developed.

[mgb]

In a word: curiosity. I agree, I don't think we should develop AI too much, but right now the leading idea is that, as we learn about AI, we're learning about how our own minds work. (Yet one could argue that for most things you need to know how your own minds work to get AI to work.) In any case, even if the research were to be repressed, it would probably eventually be developed.

There is some sort of AI "magic line" out there that will get passed without any pomp and ceremony.

We are sitting here thinking of the consequences of AI and while we are doing that someone is thinking of ways to improve AI.

Curiosity will kill the cat for the human race.

[crule81]

So, do you think robots will take over the world eventually? If so, in what way? Can they be stopped? Should they be stopped? How?

Asimov's four laws of robotics might work, but who is to say that a deviant programmer couldn't override them?

[Claverhouse]

Asimov's four laws of robotics might work, but who is to say that a deviant programmer couldn't override them?
Or a couple of short circuits ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Sackanaka]

oh boy, the theologically devout won't like this thread at all :p

evolution, though obviously applicable to biological aspects, ought not to be strictly regarded in anthropomorphological aspects; especially since organic matter, like inorganic matter, is still matter.
hence, I'd regretfully agree with the others that we're slowly (or historically, quickly?) opening a pandora's box.
except for, you know, robots being pretty precise so if we get wiped out there's not much hope unless Neo shows up.

[mgb]

whoa, deja vu

[Little Miss Krahka]

So, do you think robots will take over the world eventually? If so, in what way? Can they be stopped? Should they be stopped? How?
If they're going to do it, then they should hurry up and do it soon. I'm getting more than a little sick of the humans running the world. As long as it's not made by Micro$oft.
Yeah, I think that curiosity is a good thing. It's not curiosity that'll kill the human race, it's politics and the troglodytes who run it. Yep.

[Elro]

Yeah, I think that curiosity is a good thing. It's not curiosity that'll kill the human race, it's politics and the troglodytes who run it. Yep.

So, then, if there was a red button on the wall that you were not supposed to push, and you had no idea what it would do, you would push it?

I think curiosity is a great thing (it drives me most of the time), but AI is probably one occasion where it will go too far. But who knows? Maybe it'll turn out for the better. Asimov wrote about how robots taking over human jobs would give birth to a second Renaissance. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but it would be cool.

By the way, that red button was to nuke China. Hope you didn't push it. Though it was the government's fault for being stupid enough to put you in the same room as the button in the first place.

[CoHo]

So, do you think robots will take over the world eventually? If so, in what way? Can they be stopped? Should they be stopped? How?

Yes I think they'll take over but no I don't think they should be stopped.

There are a few very simple things that can be done with AI in very non-violent ways that would completely disrupt our current system.

What if AI could run a call-centre? Not that big of a deal really, it just answers the phone immediately (no prompts or waiting from the user) as it can spawn off thousands of different conversations at a single time. It will be as patient with the customer as possible, never be angry, never take a break, never forget to write down the customer's information before hanging up. It would be great!

On the other hand you now have a few million people out of work.

So, how many jobs can be replaced by the most basic AI program? All phone call related jobs, all order processing jobs, all data entry jobs, security monitoring jobs...

The problem is there would be this transition where some people wouldn't be able to find any sort of work, but other people would still be needed. How do you support an economy when only 25% of the population has jobs?

In my opinion, the slow phase out of humanity will be the most interesting part.

[mgb]

Yes I think they'll take over but no I don't think they should be stopped.

There are a few very simple things that can be done with AI in very non-violent ways that would completely disrupt our current system.

What if AI could run a call-centre? Not that big of a deal really, it just answers the phone immediately (no prompts or waiting from the user) as it can spawn off thousands of different conversations at a single time. It will be as patient with the customer as possible, never be angry, never take a break, never forget to write down the customer's information before hanging up. It would be great!

On the other hand you now have a few million people out of work.

So, how many jobs can be replaced by the most basic AI program? All phone call related jobs, all order processing jobs, all data entry jobs, security monitoring jobs...

The problem is there would be this transition where some people wouldn't be able to find any sort of work, but other people would still be needed. How do you support an economy when only 25% of the population has jobs?

In my opinion, the slow phase out of humanity will be the most interesting part.


I suppose AI would come at a time when people were having less babies. The movie AI suggested that's why people were adopting robotic kids.

I think it would be great, robots would put all the SJs out of work, haa haa.

[Elro]

The problem is there would be this transition where some people wouldn't be able to find any sort of work, but other people would still be needed. How do you support an economy when only 25% of the population has jobs?

You could reform the entire thing. Our current system of commerce is pretty much based on the honor system. If 75% of the US population suddenly thought the dollar was worthless, then it wouldn't matter how many millions of dollars you owned. They would just be pieces of paper. The entire economy thing is an illusion. If robots can get the annoying stuff done for us, then we could put fewer worker resources into, say, farming and more into more advanced fields (space exploration, for example). I have nothing against farming, that's just an example of one product that could be replaced by robots.

I'm more concerned about the concept of certain foreign governments, with extreme policies, creating robot soldiers. No loss of life on the robot army's part, but unless we were to have our own robot army, we would lose lives. That would hurt morale, and so on and so forth.

(Argh, I typed this yesterday but forgot to post it.)

[Lee]

evolution, though obviously applicable to biological aspects, ought not to be strictly regarded in anthropomorphological aspects; especially since organic matter, like inorganic matter, is still matter.

The way in which so few people understand or appreciate the consequences of this fact really irritates me.

[PonderBee]

I doubt that humans will ever stop breeding to a degree that will warrant a large scale production of robots to fulfill ones desire to parent. There is a neverending supply of unchecked erections (male and female) on this planet - add to that the neurotic narcissists with deep pockets that want nothing more than a pure clone of themselves to punish into an "improved" version of themselves. The human will no doubt prevail.

[mgb]

I doubt that humans will ever stop breeding to a degree that will warrant a large scale production of robots to fulfill ones desire to parent. There is a neverending supply of unchecked erections (male and female) on this planet - add to that the neurotic narcissists with deep pockets that want nothing more than a pure clone of themselves to punish into an "improved" version of themselves. The human will no doubt prevail.

Interesting. AI got around that by suggesting that Global Warming and increased radiation because of ozone holes had a detrimental effect on our reproductive systems.

Because it would take several generations at very least to evolve into beings that could withstand the pressures of the Sun, a sudden event could prove very devastating.

You have to think that we weren't the first thing to "rule" the Earth.

[PonderBee]

I don't think that we "rule" the earth now - we're just bad neighbors.

If things get so crappy that our reproductive systems are wrecked there will no doubt be countless other medical concerns. Tossing a kid or two into the mix at that point would only serve to increase the misery overall.

[Ivy]

(Moved from Links)

I was just poking around on YouTube and saw this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRcD12eKxMg&NR=1), which I had seen before but forgotten about. It's that Honda robot, Asimo, which was invented a couple of years ago. It's performing a few pretty interesting tricks such as running (both feet off the ground!), cornering, walking hand-in-hand, and exercising. Don't miss the exercising part, actually-- it's about 4:15 in, and it looks like the robot is doing the robot.

None of this is news. What struck me about it this time was the comments. People are terrified of Asimo. The latest comment, at this writing, says "This interesting video shows what the world is waiting for in the future, perfect robots every time till they sustitute humans completly.
I am surprised for the work behind this and sad for the future of all of us."

What strikes me about this is that nobody says it about robots that don't look like people. The robots that just look like a mishmash of sprockets and servos are not threatening. Roomba, the vacuuming robot, isn't hailed as the end of janitors and cleaning staff, and I don't think it gives anybody that icy-stomach feeling.

But once you give the robot a head which seems to "look" at you as you interface with it, arms and legs, and very human-like movements, people are afraid. It's still a mishmash of sprockets and servos, they're just arranged in the shape of a person. Why are people afraid of it once it's shaped like a person? Are they afraid of the robot itself, or the goals of the scientists who made the robot? Or both? Do they think it has a soul? What does that say about the human imagination and the concept of the soul?

Anyway, I did a search to see if anyone had posted about this before (I was pretty sure someone had) and found this cool thread with the link to the survey in it. I'm pretty sure the survey is stagnant, but I'm fascinated with the questions about a robot nanny, a robot working in hospice, and so forth.

Thoughts?

[HilbertSpace]

I agree that part of the problem that people see is the creation of anthropomorphic robots. We are (probably) both hard-wired and trained to recognize human shaped objects and associate them with everything we know about humans. If Asimo were shaped like a mobile mail cart, there would be fewer people freaking out. In a similar way, if Asimo were shaped like a giant spider, people would still be freaking out, but possibly in a slightly different way.

I am pro-robot and pro-AI. I like anthropomorphic robots for two reasons - first, I think once people get over the Luddite fear of the technology, anthro robots will be more acceptable in social roles. Second, and more pragmatically, I think a lot of our world is built anticipating a bipedal/hominid form, and so the easiest way to integrate with it on a general purpose basis would be to use an anthro robot.

The Luddite Fallacy has been with us for 200 years, and is probably much older than that. Robots, along with nanotech, AI, an a lot of modern biology, are just the current version. It's fueled in part, I think, by the dystopian tendency in science fiction (people look at Asimo and see the Terminator), but it has roots that run deeper than that.

[Dark Razor]

I dont really understand that fear, I mean, the behaviour of a robot can be completely controlled via it's programming, the fear of some robotic revolt or uprising is probably fuelled or originates mostly from hollywood movies, even if that sounds cheesy, but I really think it's the dominant factor.

Household robots could be a great supplement to peoples lives, as they could be used to do what slaves were used to do in ancient times, only that this time no people would have to be exploited and enslaved. So, yes I'm quite excited about advancements in robot technology as well, just dont try to programm emotions into them, that would be risky and totally unnessecary.

One interesting point that a friend of me recently noted was that humans could create a machine civilization to succeed them, so that we could live on as their creators, because a machine civilization would have much better chances of "survival" and could spread much more far throughout the galaxy than fragile human beings. I however was more in favour of combining humans and machines Borg-style as this would allow to combine the human spirit or "soul" with the more robust robot body. Of course as long as even stem-cell research and cloning of organs is considered "amoral" nothing of this has any chance of success :rolleyes:

[HilbertSpace]

One interesting point that a friend of me recently noted was that humans could create a machine civilization to succeed them, so that we could live on as their creators, because a machine civilization would have much better chances of "survival" and could spread much more far throughout the galaxy than fragile human beings. I however was more in favour of combining humans and machines Borg-style as this would allow to combine the human spirit or "soul" with the more robust robot body. Of course as long as even stem-cell research and cloning of organs is considered "amoral" nothing of this has any chance of success :rolleyes:

This is actually how Ray Kurzweil thinks things are going to go. He is a fairly prominent voice that is trying to counter the whole dystopian view of technology, and is worth reading. I think his hopes for near-term development of the technologies are a little ambitious, but that aside I think he's more often correct than not.

[Dark Razor]

Interesting, I had heard of him before, but never actually read any of his works, now I looked him up on wikipedia and I find his views intersting, I will probably have a look into his books.

[PiccoloNamek]

Fear of humanoid robots is foolish and stupid, and is mostly caused by all of the big hollywood dystopian sci-fi movies such as Terminator, the Matrix, et al. Personally, I am very hopeful and enthusiastic concerning the future of robots and humans, and humanoid robots. Whereas most people think of Terminator when they think of humanoid robots, I'm thinking of something more along the lines of Chobits, which I think is one of the most realistic and attainable portrayals of a future with androids that I've seen. People have them in their houses, in stores, in their cars. They do chores around the house, ring up your grocieries, and do your accounting at the end of the day. They can be your servant, your companion, your best friend, even your lover. And yet, when it comes right down to it, all but the most utterly advanced models are still just computers. They can only do what they've been programmed to do. They will not and cannot rise up, kill humans, or take over society. They are perfectly safe, and once people realized this, they became as ubiquitous as cell phones.

That is the kind of future with machines that I envison.

[Ivy]

Fear of humanoid robots is foolish and stupid, and is mostly caused by all of the big hollywood dystopian sci-fi movies such as Terminator, the Matrix, et al. Personally, I am very hopeful and enthusiastic concerning the future of robots and humans, and humanoid robots. Whereas most people think of Terminator when they think of humanoid robots, I'm thinking of something more along the lines of Chobits, which I think is one of the most realistic and attainable portrayals of a future with androids that I've seen. People have them in their houses, in stores, in their cars. They do chores around the house, ring up your grocieries, and do your accounting at the end of the day. They can be your companion, your best friend, and in the case of the most advanced (sapient) models, even your lover.

That is the kind of future with machines that I envison.

I agree that there's no rational reason to think the future of humanoid robotics will be scary. We shouldn't let these kinds of histrionics (I used that word twice today, woot!) hamper the trajectory of scientific inquiry and progress.

But I reserve the right to enjoy a good old fashioned humanoid-robot dystopian sci-fi experience (i.e. Battlestar Galactica). :)

[Anonymous]

I think that preventing a robotic take-over would be relatively easy. Just create them well and put in safety measures and you'll never have to worry.