Robot Ethics Part 2: Robots Podcast’s interview with Ronald Arkin
(Ronald says it’s manageable, and we’re working on it) http://goo.gl/O1iLn

Anthrobotic.com’s “Can a computer be as intelligent as a human? Or, Asking the Wrong Dumb Question. Get it?” http://goo.gl/rmzkn
(blathering about how “human-like” intelligence is a very different animal from “human-level” intelligence – and we shouldn’t sleep on that)

-Reno at Anthrobotic.com

It can already be observed as a a work-in-progress. And effectively evolving by a process of self-assembly. You may have noticed that we are increasingly, in a sense, “enslaved” by our PCs, mobile phones, their apps and many other trappings of the net. We are already largely dependent upon it for our commerce and industry and there is no turning back. What we perceive as a tool is well on its way to becoming an agent.

Consider this:

There are at present an estimated 2 Billion internet users. There are an estimated 13 Billion neurons in the human brain. On this basis for approximation the internet is even now only one order of magnitude below the human brain and its growth is exponential.

That is a simplification, of course. For example: Not all users have their own computer. So perhaps we could reduce that, say, tenfold. The number of switching units, transistors, if you wish, contained by all the computers connecting to the internet and which are more analogous to individual neurons is many orders of magnitude greater than 2 Billion. Then again, this is compensated for to some extent by the fact that neurons do not appear to be binary switching devices but can adopt multiple states.

Without even crunching the numbers, we see that we must take seriously the possibility that even the present internet may well be comparable to a human brain in processing power. And, of course, the degree of interconnection and cross-linking of networks within networks is also growing rapidly.

The culmination of this exponential growth corresponds to the event that transhumanists inappropriately call “The Singularity” but is more properly regarded as a phase transition of the “life” process.

The broad evolutionary model that supports this contention is outlined very informally in “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?” , a free download in e-book formats from the “Unusual Perspectives” website

Any company that has shareholders to report to has an agenda and of course they have power or influence that could in many ways prove much more powerful than the single vote they don’t have rights to.

I think we care about what happens to robots for lots of reasons and the more we care or the more we think of them as human like, then the more rights they will have (like we monitor a Semi Truck now to see how many times the driver nails the brakes to see if he is a high risk driver, or if parts are performing normally, or we monitor the average speed or gas milage, but only because it helps cut costs, not because we care about the rights of the truck. we care about the owner of the truck or the owner’s rights). Any company that monitors the robots will want to give them the best profitability and if that proves rights=money, then that idea will win. If the rights of the owner of the robot suffer and thus hurt profitability then I think rights will be removed, so my guess is that rights for robots will not prove profitable and if any rights are given they are more likely to match a company than a person. If the robots become self aware, then the game changes of course. As soon as the company that makes the robot finds a way to make more money when they robots are self aware, then it will happen on a larger scale. I am sure some hacker will attempt to make a robot self aware just to see what happens. I think the Human like qualities to make the robots effective will also drastically blur the line of how we care or feel about robots and what rights they have or deserve.

Robots could also become self aware if they are made as copies to us and we setup our rights to transfer to them when/if we were to die. Lets say you teach a robot to act like you so that it does all the hard work you do, and you get to be the clone that has all the fun? What if you die in a freak accident, could one of these robots continue to carry out your wishes and even work or protect your family on your behalf? Would you will your assets to this group of robots like an LLC (at first to avoid tax issues, later to keep it going forever, like a company that has an agenda that you would have wanted to continue/protect if you were alive). What if this robot was your best self in every way…. wouldn’t you want to live forever in this way if you could not yourself? (imagine you have no kids or family to leave money to. why not leave it to a robot designed to carry out your wishes for ever? assuming you can’t live forever of course)?

When the economy recovers, they just might bring back that SyNAPSE project. Especially when the Taliban resurges and invites al Qaeda back to Afghanistan after 2014. According to Moore’s Law, there will two doublings of processor power by 2015. That will make the robots a lot better.

Now if robots were programmed to power-down after poor treatment (effectively staging a strike), perhaps that behaviour would be forced to modify and have positive knock-on effects with regards human-human interaction.

We love to anthropomorphise pets, and we’ll probably start off doing the same with robots. But this will change. Robots may eventually become trusted friends and perhaps lovers.

Predictions for the first human-robot marriage, anyone? :)

However, I’m sure this won’t be their last crack at AI-driven war machines. In 15-20 years, who knows what they’ll be able to deploy (i’m betting on semi-autonomous, myself).

Will being a “uncertified” programmer, be illegal?