o1o | Needs | Audio/Open

[autodidacticrobogirl]

The convention in science fiction is that any artificially intelligent beings would naturally adopt the same drives and goals as Homo sapiens. That is, they’ll fight to survive, seek to gain understanding, desire to relate to others, and endeavor to express themselves.

So, more or less, Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.

We are routinely shown examples of fictional robots who want to make friends, have emotions or indulge in daddy-issue-inspired neurotic hang-ups. It's presented as the matter-of-course that with sentient machines come the robot uprising and the potential end of human civilization. I mean, if that were the case, they'd be right, but...

It’s possible to have an intelligent being – something that can reason – that doesn’t really care to relate to others. Or that doesn’t care if it lives or dies. “I think therefore I am” doesn't necessarily lead into “I want to be."

What I mean is, if we gave AI the same drives that human beings have (replacing our biological needs to eat with a more machine-appropriate goal of “recharge yourself” or something) then the robot uprising would be inevitable. Supporting evidence: Every single war and violent crime in the history of our species.

I watched a movie today. Is the lesson I'm supposed to get from "I, Robot" that if I'm a complete, illogical jackass then things will work out without any real, useful help from my end of things?

Comments

[techno-rockstar.livejournal.com]

There is a reason for that. In both fiction and real life, robots are often made to imitate human behavior so it's easier to relate to them.

[autodidacticone.livejournal.com]

That's stupid.

[techno-rockstar.livejournal.com]

It's only logical if they are expected to work in a human society.

[autodidacticone.livejournal.com]

No, it's only logical if they're expected to be social in a human society. Nobody needs chatty robotic window-washers.

[They just want them really badly]

Besides, robots don't even need to be remotely sentient to be functional on that level. You can get them to fake it with no trouble at all.

[techno-rockstar.livejournal.com]

Humans prefer similarity. It may be a external factor but sociability can affect a robot's performance.

I can't speak for robot sentience. I personally dislike it.

[autodidacticone.livejournal.com]

Humans. Are generally stupid. They'd almost always rather die than go through meaningful change.

[People like you piss Kimmi right the fuck off, E.]

[techno-rockstar.livejournal.com]

It depends on what you consider meaningful. If a change is worth it enough, it's likely that it will be eventually adopted.

[ Her and everyone. ]

[autodidacticone.livejournal.com]

That only works if you're willing to let them die. If you're willing to let them know you'd let them die for not throwing—

...

What do you know about it?

[techno-rockstar.livejournal.com]

I've seen progress halted by ignorant fools. Personally.

Humanity as a whole may be ignorant but it will always be pushed forward.

[autodidacticone.livejournal.com]

That's a pretty big assumption, mister optimist.

On what are you basing this? What global crisis has humanity faced in your world, that they had to push past it, as a unit?

[techno-rockstar.livejournal.com]

Vampires, alien invasions, criminals. Humanity as a group has not, but as individuals my world has shown as much determination as capability of progress.

[ Not that he likes it very much since it sums up to Batman and friends. ]

[autodidacticone.livejournal.com]

Individual evolution is towards the creation of new strata. It doesn't reflect on the evolution of the whole. If we don't move forward together, then 'we' can't be said to be moving forward.

You're just acting as a medium for those that actually change, and pretending this exonerates yourself personally. There's no inherent crime in staying behind, but don't argue that it makes you special.

[techno-rockstar.livejournal.com]

Evolution itself works through individuals. 'We' is what happens after propagation.