Amidst the horror-filled dystopian predictions of robots turning against humans, and optimistic dreams of living in harmony with android friends, the term “artificial intelligence” gets thrown around approximately once every three sentences. However, for most of us, our conception of what this actually entails is somewhat flawed.
To begin with, intellect is generally understood as something’s capacity to learn, reason, and understand based on factual information. Learning has already been conquered; computers have long been able to store and recite information fed in from external sources. Reasoning has likewise been tamed, on a basic level at least; the simplest “IF/THEN/ELSE” statement provides for a simple conclusion based on given factual premises. Understanding is also falling under manmade dominion; the Kansei robot, for example, “reads” facial expressions and “understands” the emotions they convey. “Intelligence” per se is not, therefore, referring to actual intelligence, but rather to a higher degree of conscience or sentience.
This is where we tend to overreach. Humankind has long thought itself far superior to other animals based on our advanced mental capacity. It seems more reasonable to me for development of robot “minds” to focus first on autonomy in baser forms; that is, re-focus our obsession from Artificial Intelligence to Artificial Instinct. The ability to sense, perceive, and develop reaction to anything around them, even things outside their pre-programmed schematic, is that vital step between machines and those “robots” of the future.
On a somewhat tangential point, the ethical question would spring up around here somewhere; at the point where humans are creating autonomous individuals. More interestingly, and perhaps more importantly, would be the dilemma when we are actually on the cusp of creating actual sentience. Sure, these robots wouldn’t be “alive” by a scientific definition; yet if they could act on their own, think on their own, and behave for all intents and purposes like a living organism, then I don’t think ethics should be concerned about the physical makeup of its robotic innards. After all, the creation of certain types of robots would be technological eugenics; programming a robot is tampering with or creating its genetic code. In a time where stem cell research is so hotly debated, I find it interesting how the issue of robotic life is just about ignored.
Another interesting subject (sorry for jumping around) is what was brought up during discussion in regards to art and robots: is it art if it’s made by a machine? Before diving into this question, I’d like to say that, in my opinion, art and meaning exist in separate realms. A piece of art can have a particular meaning; a person can draw meaning out of art as well. Yet the absence of meaning doesn’t prohibit a piece from being artistic, if it is still aesthetically pleasing. The “perfect man” image, for example (http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/external_relations/news_article.cfm?reference=409), was computer-generated. Yet I can find artistic merit. Thus to return to the original question, I would say that yes, art created by robots is still art. However, I don’t think robots can confer a meaning in the art they create. It can be programmed to do something a particular way; however, any meaning is coming from the person programming, not the robot itself. And here we come full circle in my attempt to make this entry less scatterbrained: in my opinion, a robot will not be able to create something of its own, with a meaning or message that came not from a programmer but itself, until it has autonomy and sentience.
Now here’s some links to interesting robot stuff:
http://www.livescience.com/technology/071012-robot-marriage.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6200005.stm
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/robots/remote-control-humans-193817.php
