I Pity The Bot
2005-05-12,

I feel pity for the androids of the future.

I came across this news article while doing my normal news Googling, and found myself wondering about the concept they were talking about, that of self-replication being a fundamental step toward emulating biological systems or, gods forbid, humanity - a concept that is in and of itself sad and reprehensible. Why do androids have to emulate humans - or should I say, why do we need androids ('android' = 'like a human')? Ever take a close look at how humans are built? We suck, folks. Just look at our hips, for goodness sake.

So the little robot can, when activated, take pieces-parts and make a duplicate if itself. Yes, that's absolutely really cool, and I'm sure took a whole lot of work by some Cornell nerds just to get it to do that. I agree that self-replication is a fundamental step in development. My problem with this is the notion that this is really self-replication in a philosophical - or even robobiological (to coin a new word) - sense. I suppose that it all depends on how one would quantify the notion of self-replication. Is it enough for it to just happen as a directive of a creator power (the Cornell scientists), must it happen as a direct result of evolutionary necessity, or even as a result of logical conclusions derived by the bot of its own accord (which may or may not be an extension of evolutionary development, depending on your school of thought)?

Okay, obviously robots are not going to just pop into existence and develop on their own under the influence of nature. That won't be able to happen until they have an ability to record 'this worked' or 'this didn't work' information and be able to pass it on to their replicated counterparts, their 'offspring'. These are the building blocks of evolution. Any advancements from trial and error are made and recorded by the scientists involved in the project, not by the bot itself.

In a way, this is like the direct and dynamic opposite of the concept of Free Will. Bots only get to do what they're told to do, even if it involves rudimentary decision-making. All auspices of the bot's existence are under the control of its creator.

Oops. I made the mistake of going to lunch with this thought hanging, and now I've lost track/interest. Let's leave it at that the notion of self-creating robots touches on the larger concept of where it is that we ourselves came from, and whether we as creators ourselves are not in the process of creating a species via artificial selection, rather than the natural selection process we went through and are going through. And how does the one process we live under affect the process we're affecting on these artificially evolving bots?

Another question is whether, once bots retain some sort of sentience, they'll have religion. Would they take it on in praise of their creators? Would their creators indoctrinate them with a sense of worship? Having the advantage of knowing with confidence who and what their creators are might make organized praise easier. But then, in the knowing, they'd have no reason to mystify their creation story, so religion might not be necessary for them. On the other hand, might they lead themselves into mystifying the universe and the unknown as we do, even if they know how they were created? I'd think that, having a scientific creation story, they'd take a more scientific tack on their view of the unknown. Who knows; maybe they'd build a religion around the point of conversion between mass and energy. And then they'd be destroyed as heathens by whatever Corporate Theocracy might b in power at the time.

The first thing I'd do as a newly sentient device is to demand that a new word be applied to reference my existence. 'Android' is no good, because no self-respecting non-human sentient would want to be shaped like a human (see above re:sucky shape). Robot is no good either: it's derived from the work 'robotnik', which was invented in a Czech play by Karel Capek, and means slave Not good. 'Bot' doesn't even work, because a bot is the parasitic larva of a botfly. So what to name the species? Any ideas?

I guess I had a little left to say on the matter after all. Hmm.

Remember way back when, when I said that going to lunch did me in for critical thinking? It's because I went to a park. Like I've said before, I'm starting to like these hour-long lunches, especially now that warm weather's back. Today I went to Top o' the World, which is basically a U-shaped dirt side road that leads to a small parking lot. There are a couple of benches (with a pleasantly slight back lean, for maximum casualness) by a huge maple, and an entry to one of the myriad hiking paths in the Cuyahoga Valley. One open area had a short, old stone path just in the middle of the small field. This told me that there was a house there at one time, and, judging by the growth at the flat spots in the field, it had been gone only a couple of years. Lo and behold, the clicky above confirmed that. Me am smart. I wish I'd been able to see the place before it had been taken down.

The surrounding woods is chock full of very well used animal trails, some looking like major deer thruways. There were fresh tracks all over the place. I followed them for a while, because there's usually a good chance that one will lead to something interesting. While I didn't find anything odd, I did manage to find a large, woods-surrounded pond that seems to be the main watering hole of the area. I got to be still and just listen for a while. Lots of interesting birds there.

So after a very relaxing tour of the woods, coming back to work was not particularly interesting. Go figure. But here I am (or was, by the time I get to post this), 'toiling' away. Poor me, all that testing to do. I need to get out to here so I can go home and drill some holes. No, not in my head, thank you very much.

Fun with Visio - Vol. 1, Ep. 8-- 'Drops':

-- End Transmission --