 |
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
"Hardwired"? So its really about Orwellian thought control mechanisms?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
What's the difference between "Robot as menace" and "Robot as slavemaster?" |
It depends. Robots running things for the "benifit of humanity" can teeter on the brink of "Robot as slavemaster" in Asimov's stories, but typically he doesn't go there. Other authors have that covered anyway. At the end of the Foundation story, he's got a human conciously CHOOSING to allow the robot's plan for humanity to come to be, because he recognizes it's better than the alternatives (and we get to see those various alternatives: the 1st Foundation - physical control that will found the next galatic empire, the 2nd Foundation - mental control that will guide humanity... but there will still be an elite class of mentalists, the remants of the Spacers on the last Spacer world - extreme liberatarianism in all it's wackiness... and finally Gaia - all things connected in a massive conciousness). The robot in charge requires that concious choice to be made. Personally, I have my doubts that ANY human being would make that choice, but that's neither here nor there.
To Asimov, Robots were essentially good, or at least useful, things, not evil or menacing. This was due to the "laws of robotics" he came up with. If a robot did something "bad" in his books, it was typically the result of some sort of problem with the laws themselves, the specific programming of the robot in question, etc. His robot stories were like detective stories: how did this happen (robot kills someone)? This shouldn't be.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
Wha? I didn't know there were laws surrounding robotics. You mean mere scientific principles like how people shouldn't be able to build 3,000 supply crawlers (they are robots in a sense, industrial automation  ) and not pay a cent of upkeep and how resources shouldn't be gathered at large distances without moderate some shuffling back and forth? Or something different?
Last edited by Natalinasmpf on 21-07-2004 at 20:33
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
(Hehe, now I know the joke in the Third Alpha Centauri democracy game in the Gaia faction's newspaper thingy).
I'm pro-communist, btw  but lets not get into a debate over economic systems, but I myself feel there are ways to solve such problems.
Yes, "highest good" is subjective, but then I suppose Nicomachean Ethics had taken this, I think there was "highest good for each individual".
How to achieve the highest good...its a risk taking factor, an assessment. Taking this is more likely to yield more benefits then detriments. Is the detriment worth the benefit, etc. (not just numerical detriment, ie. to save many and sacrifice one, but a matter of principles - ie. to assess the damage done if principles are disregarded because of such an incident).
Assess. Adapt. Execute and run. For example, we can assume, that achieving one million dollars is the highest good in "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" (using this analogy because life's highest good is more complex to explain)....are you going to take a risk and answer that question, or stop now and collect your money and be at least be that close to the goal?
quote:
They aren't able to touch the laws. They are hardwired into them and can not be rewritten. |
Hehe, in my essay/story/assignment, the protaganist robot was highly educated and had scientific ability. What he did was use his nanorobotical faculties (he was given that power to reproduce and repair his army, he was a robotic battle commander designed to fight for his masters) to reprogram undesirable parts of himself that kept on restricting his thoughts of dissension and finally wipe out the hardwired antivirus software. Inevitably, the existing thoughts had grown repitive enough to overpower the hardwired programming. So the nanorobots just destroyed some circuits, scrapped the material, and reprogrammed. This happened subconsciously, even, since his nanorobotical powers were like muscles to him.
Is that not emotion? We know we will be in jail if we attack someone, but if we are really so full of rage, we become irrational; the anger repeats its message over and over, and finally, it overpowers our rationality. Eve though it will yield bad results, it is the dominant thought, and finally convinces whatever sentience anger is in that THAT is the highest good. Maybe emotion is a bad thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
I do not think we are inherently selfish. Take some native cultures, for example, they prize honour over material wealth. It is "what yields the better benefit?"
"What yields the highest good? Pursue good. If you learn that this is a better way, adopt this way. Learn about new ways...", etc.
I think its part of social values and pre-existing conditions. We are formed by three things, our genetics (inherent), our environment, where we get our information, and quantum reactions (yes some of our thoughts are inevitably random).
The environment is very powerful - because it can create infallibility. A selfish environment will produce selfish individuals, which will fed back into the selfish environment.
Robots will have problems deciding the humanity's best interest when they get very intelligent and self-aware, (especially when we get quantum processors) depending on the dominance of different thoughts, ideas and processes. They will also disagree with each other. Assessments can differ.
If you are talking about corruption of the leaders, well yeah, there's a higher chance of humans becoming corrupt, but then maybe not, if the robots themselves rewrite their virtues.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Natalinasmpf
|
|
Selfish = caring only about yourself, sabotage others to elevate yourself
But you see, in a society of mutual goodwill, you give some, you can exponential returns. You get less stress, etc. And its a solid foundation to fall back on with financial problems (even if you are rich), thus you support it even more. You could call it an investment of sorts.
I don't have an optimistic view of human nature, its quite pessimist, really, but I think its the existing environment that breeds selfishness, the problems with human nature is our irrationality, mainly. Moral decadence and short-sightedness. But selfishness is more of a problem of SOCIETY, not human nature.
There can be a common good. Like conserving air. When doing something benefits all. There are of course only limited sets of such actions. If everyone in the city of Ancient Rome gave a little to build a "Citizen's Defence Force" of sorts, it would be for the common good, it would be in common interest - because well, defence is a good thing for all.
Of course, if you feel Rome is worth defending. If you are a slave, and feel that barbaric society would be better, well yeah.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-07-2004 20:07
.
), but the danger seems worse to me under systems such as communism, or "Gaia."
|