Thesis
What
is exactly is a robot? Robots have been defined by the law, language, and
popular culture. As we continue to evolve through technology and society, so
does our definition of a robot. Many characteristics we acknowledge are based
on our conceptions of humanity and servitude demonstrating thoughts both to the
future and the past.
Evaluation
“A robot is a
reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts,
tools or specialized devices through variable programmed motions for the
performance of a variety of tasks.”
--The Robotic Industries Association (RIA) (RIA 2013)
Legally
a robot is defined as a reprogrammable manipulator of physical material. This
definition would essentially include and machine that has the option to be
programmed. Could a very fancy screwdriver be a robot? Or is this only
applicable to a sophisticated lathe? This definition seems broader than the
common visual of a robot as a metallic man. Perhaps this definition is
non-inclusive and should be evaluated further.
“ a machine
that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or
talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of
capacity for human emotions is often emphasized”
--Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Anonymous 2013)
Robot
defined by the language experts refers and compares to humans to complete this
definition. The primary definition defines that a robot, “look like a human,”
yet be devoid of emotion. This definition implies that to be a robot, a machine
must possess human characteristics, but not all
human characteristics. In this definition, neither the programmable lathe nor
the screwdriver would be accepted as a robot. Perhaps this makes other machines
a different class of machine. Would the specification of human features and
lack of emotions create subclasses of machine-kind? Would robots then
discriminate against other robots based on Android, Industrial, or Artificial
Intelligence base programming?
Human
kind has long pondered the case of the robot. It may seem that we are caught
between a legal definition such as the one by RIA, and a cultural definition as
defined by Merriam Webster. Legal definitions seem to be defined by technical
capabilities and current technology. Cultural definitions seem to be ever
evolving however. The term ‘robot’ first came about in 1920 from a Czech
playwright and is derived from terms referring to servitude and slavery
(Intagliata 2011). The term has been captured by pop culture and evolved in
many ways, while still referring back to the origins of performing tasks for
humans.
“Let us remember that the
automatic machine is the precise economic equivalent of slave labor. Any labor
which competes with slave labor must accept the economic consequences of slave
labor.”
― Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics (Chandler 2013)
― Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics (Chandler 2013)
Are
robots a fancy term for slave labor? Our working definitions so far include a
programmable machine that does not feel emotion, yet resembles a human. When
did this demand for lack of emotion get added to the definition of robot?
Emotions are not specified in the original definition in 1920. As part of the
human condition, have we tried to justify the invention of a slave race devoid
of emotion to alleviate our guilt at the servitude of another? How much have we
defined our understanding of robots based on the ability of robots to do jobs
for us without feeling?
“Robots do not celebrate
anything. Celebration is an expression of joy, which cannot be mechanized.”
― Ravindra Shukla, A Maverick Heart Between Love and Life (Chandler 2013)
― Ravindra Shukla, A Maverick Heart Between Love and Life (Chandler 2013)
By
emphasizing an inability to feel joy, are we emphasizing the ability of a robot
to feel pain? It is a common human temptation to anthropomorphize the objects
around us. I doubt I am alone in believing my car has been throwing a temper
tantrum. I feel very convinced my phone as it refuses to swear and regularly
suggests the word ‘sinner’ as a noun replacement. We often create personalities
for machines, yet are quick to note the distinctions between us and anything
artificial. Is this distinction based upon fact or our desire to justify our
feelings?
“Unfortunately robots
capable of manufacturing robots do not exist. That would be the philosopher's
stone, the squaring of the circle.”
While
initially true, the belief that robots cannot manufacture other robots may be a
concept that will fade with time. The ever popular movies based on the
Terminator series pose a world where machines can reproduce and become self-aware.
If we define our definitions of robots based on their similarities and
differences from ourselves, from the services these robots provide – then what
happens when these robots evolve?
While
movies and science fiction may take examples to extremes, it seems that robots
have already evolved from the dreams of a 1920’s playwright to working machines
with both standard and legal definitions. Our definitions must keep evolving as
does our technology. Our society too, must acknowledge the needs and fears
behind this technological evolution. As robot becomes reality, so must we too
look to the future and our lives as they evolve alongside machines?
References
Anonymous.
(2013). “Robot,” Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated. Retrieved April 9, 2013
Chandler, O.
(2013). “Quotes About Robots,” Good
Reads, Inc. Retrieved April 9, 2013 from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/robots
Intagliata, C.
(April 2011). “Science Diction: The Origin of the Word ‘Robot’”, Science Friday. Retrieved April 9, 2013
from http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/04/22/2011/science-diction-the-origin-of-the-word-robot.html
Robotics
Industries Association. (2013). “Robotics Law and Legal Definition,” US Legal, Inc. Retrieved April, 9 2013
from http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/robotics/
No comments:
Post a Comment