The conversation in class Friday provoked the question of what it really means to be human, and like all questions regarding moral or ethical dilemmas, simple answers are not sufficient enough satisfy them. In fact, there is almost never a right or wrong answer to any of these questions. However, I would still like to give my insight on what it means to be human and how that shapes my opinion on "Ash 2.0."
Humans, unlike robots, are not controlled by lifeless algorithms that are responsible for how they learn and respond to the environment. Humans process, compute, and regurgitate information and emotions with the help of their brain, a living organ going through daily life functions. Robots do not have a brain, nor a heart pumping blood through their body, nor the humanly desire to eat, sleep, or weep. On the flip side, robots are great imitators (or at least Ash 2.0 was), and they do possess the ability to learn these humanly functions just as we do but in a different manner.
So, what if a bot was made cleverly enough to where he (it?) was indistinguishable from an adult human? What if instead of using a brain, he took advantage of the billions of available web material to learn how to become an emotionally and socially responsive human? Will we still deny this robot the humanity his creator has worked so hard for?
I say we shouldn't. Alan Turing suggests that if we can not distinguish a robot from a human, then this robot should be seen as a human. I mean, the only difference between it and us is how it processes information. Robots may have to learn emotions, but so do children. And they may have to learn sarcasm and slang, but we all had to do the same thing at one point in our lives.
Ash 2.0 could have been human. He was very close to being human. He had the ability to learn how to be human with exposure. Robots like Ash 2.0 shouldn't be denied their humanity. We should embrace their fascination in a world completely new to them and their child like inquisition just like we would with our own kids.
Great video! You pose some interesting questions. I wonder, should we ask 'can robots be our equivalents?' or can we ask 'can we be equivalent to a robot?'.
ReplyDelete