VISIONS OF A ROBOT DREAM - Part 2

VISIONS OF A ROBOT DREAM - Part 2
My last entry introduced the topic of "Hybrots" (I personally like to call them "Biobots"). For people who are completely unfamiliar with this unfamiliar term, "Hybrots" describe a robotic system that is coupled with an incubated unit for housing a neuron cell culture. This cell culture acts as the brain for the entire robotic system. "Training" these cell cultures enable it to react to certain scenarios in specific ways. The bond between the system developer and the neural network is akin to the relationship between a parent and a baby. Currently, because of the life span of the cell culture (close to 2-3 years), a saturation point is attained beyond which no more "training" can take place, but I strongly believe that within the end of the next decade this hassle will cease to exist. How? You may ask. This question warrants a whole new entry (which I will be glad to discuss about later), but for now lets just assume that advances in bio-technology and robotics allow for the creation and existence of these "Hybrots".

I strongly feel that if robotists ever were to create a robot with intelligence that mirrors our own then it would definitely be one with living brain cell, most likely human. I could never imagine any piece of integrated circuitry reverse engineered to map the functions of the human brain, the most complex processor known to man. Mankind isint far from witnessing a society peppered with Hybrots, co-existing with humanity, helping it to grease its gears. Which brings us back the question that I put forth in my previous entry: "Should these Hybrots be considered living entities?"

There will be some who might asseverate Hybrots as living entities without any hesitation. There will also be some (the obvious skeptics) who might claim that Hybrots can be only be considered a living entity when they attain a state of consciousness. Now, what is consciousness? Consciousness in robotics is a relative state of mind that makes a robot self-aware. A conscious robot is supposed to comprise of attributes such as a sense of place, imagination, directed attention, planning, decision and emotion. Programming the various attributes mentioned above into a robotic system would indeed be an exacting task but imbibing the necessary qualities for a robot to possess emotion and imagination is Herculian in nature. Sadly, at present, the research surrounding these attributes lies vastly in theory, however, it's practical implementations has just witnessed its genesis last decade.

This entry is filled with assumptions galore, so it doesn't adversely affect us if we throw in one more. Let us consider the possibility that some brilliant mind in the future comes up with a design for implementing emotions and imagination into a Hybrot. This would not only make the Hybrot a conscious sentient being but would also win the inventor a Nobel prize that year (i.e if Alfred Nobel still has funds in his savings account). Even after this there will be some who would just refuse to treat Hybrots as living beings. They could always argue that consciousness is a relative term and even if a robot is self-aware, without a moral and ethical foundation it cannot be considered a living entity. Stubborn but a very interesting point nonetheless.

The only way for a robot to possess moral or ethical values is by making it three laws safe. Of course by three laws I meant the one and only, (actually three and only..pardon my flaccid flippancy with words) three laws of Robotics by Isaac Asimov. In accordance with Wikipedia, "the Three Laws of Robotics are a set of three rules written by Isaac Asimov, which almost all positronic robots appearing in his fiction must obey. Introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround", although foreshadowed in a few earlier stories, the Laws state the following:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."

Even though these laws were meant to be ethical guidelines instead of rules to be followed during the engineering process involving the development of a robot, till this date they are still considered to be the pioneering laws of robotics. It's my belief that these laws would stand the test of time (and possibly be implemented in all Hybrots in the near future?). A first glance at these laws reveal to the reader the ideal characteristics of an epitome citizen. So mankind can be assured that a Hybrot which is manufactured "three laws safe" could be considered a citizen of the society as it supplants its own safekeeping with the safety of the humans around him. It is only natural that a Hybrot be considered a living entity when he surpasses an average human on moral standards.

However, a second glance at these laws would reveal to the reader a myriad of loopholes that could be best described as a programmer's nightmare. So are these Hybrots that are "three laws safe", actually "three laws safe"? Using the same lame excuse from last blog, I shall discuss how safe the three laws actually are in my next blog. Until then I shall bid thee avid reader, a big adieu.



Transmission complete - Amrith

{I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die. - Roy Batty}