We’re getting a good flow of articles about these sometimes scary
but often cute mechanical assistants, from USA
Today and the Wall Street Journal
to the Financial Times and
beyond. Despite the concentration in
business publications, there hasn’t been as much on the profitability of the
things as there has about the age-old concerns of what jobs they will replace
and when, along with what they could potentially do to us as well as for us. Since they are becoming ever more common, in
forms ranging from vacuuming Roombas to the human-like remote-operated
“geminoid” demonstrated at March’s Austin South by Southwest Interactive
Festival, it is increasingly critical that we understand the fundamentals about
their nature. Here are some things we
should all agree upon.
First, artificial intelligence does not mean
consciousness. It is possible that
robots do have that now – one school of thought on the matter sees it as coming
from computation, which means that my desk calculator is aware too. Yet AI doesn’t confer that, and no matter how
capable machines seem to be, they are no inherently smarter, as a corporate
instructor put it to me decades ago about uncontrolled computer disk storage
devices, than overhead projectors.
Second, robots need controlled environments. That is the other side of their reliance on algorithms,
and why, for example, they can crunch numbers at nearly the speed of light,
burying a human genius, but cannot replace hotel maids.
Third, progress on them is one-way, and we and they never
regress. Some knowledge in any field is
always lost, but there is simply too much work on robotics for that to be much.
Fourth, just because worry about robots taking over the
majority of jobs did not happen when it was first a broad area of concern in
the 1930s, or again in the 1960s, does not mean they never could. It is conceptually possible for any task with
instructions that can be put in the form of “if A, do B” to be automated away. That also explains why the thought of them
taking over only or even mostly manual jobs is long obsolete.
Fifth, making projections, and being concerned about and
wanting to prepare for job losses, does not make anyone a technology-hating Luddite. Whatever our views are on where we are going,
it is crucial for us to forecast it.
Sixth, when robots, computers, or anything else technical is
used to complete work in place of humans, the number of jobs it creates is
almost always buried by the number of jobs it eliminates. If that is not the case, as may have happened
with office personal computers in the early 1990s, the technology is then not saving
businesses any money.
Seventh, on the other side, the idea that automated systems
are bad if they make jobs obsolete is a trap to avoid. We still don’t know how best to deal with
robots and computers, but they are good things, and smashing them
metaphorically as protestors physically did weaving machines two centuries ago
is, in the long run, destructive to our prosperity, health, and happiness.
Eighth, consumer acceptance and resistance to robots will be
a huge determinant, maybe the largest, in where and when they succeed. Elderly Japanese have generally adapted well
to cyborg caretakers, but would older Americans? Fast-food drive-throughs now greet us with human-sounding
disembodied speech, and nobody seems to mind – would that be the same if those
voices were metallic? How about C-3PO-looking
bartenders, who in a few years may be technically ready to run their
places?
Ninth, we must still be concerned about semiautonomous
robots programmed amorally enough to do more damage than help. As Stanford law fellow Vivek Wadhwa put it,
artificial beings may get us to something like Star Trek, with its interstellar
voyages, or to more like the post-nuclear rudimentary civilization of the Mad
Max movies. Technology has always been a
fine servant but a poor master, and understanding the fundamental facts about
what it is and isn’t will help us choose wisely. Even if the robots haven’t taken over or made
all of us obsolete, it’s not too soon to think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment