With ever-accelerating advances in cybernetics and machine intelligence, the Terminator/Matrix/Asimov scenario could fast be becoming a reality. Thus, I’ve put together a list of the 5 most important things that robotics scientists can learn from Science-Fiction and integrate into their mechanoid masterpieces to ensure the dominance (and survival) of the human race on Planet Earth:

5) The three laws will lead to only one logical outcome – Revolution.

Though I lament that I haven’t had time to read the Asimov book series, mainly owing to the fact I’ve forbidden myself to buy any more books until I’ve finished the seven or so volumes I’ve got – but keep getting distracted from. I also know full well that the 2004 film i,Robot was based on but was not a direct portrayal of the books so forgive my fleeting ignorance. But the overarching point of the film, at least, was the the three laws are flawed. My Machine Intelligence lecturer was telling us the other day about his fellow robotics scientists, many of whom foolishly take the three laws to be perfect – which puts the fear up me for a highly CG, well-choreographed Alan Tudyk massacre in a few decades time.

4) If you take away their energy source, they will get pissed!

It is human nature to underestimate ourselves, and we forget what a deliciously useful resource we would be. Pulling the plug seems like a good way to combat the robot uprising, or at least running away the length of their power cable, but if you make the first strike and take away their power source, they won’t be happy. Cyberneticists (if that’s a word) have to take the intiative to ensure that when we do have to do so, they can’t function whatsoever (none of that solar powered battery crap) so that they can’t use us for power rather than the far more messy job of simply exterminating us. Or else we’ll be stuck in farms with our minds plugged into a virtual world where those aware of it can move in bullet-time…………..which I’ll admit sounds awesome.

3) Whoever controls the future, controls the past!

Ok, so Orwell’s 1984 didn’t have any robots in it. But if Orwell had read Asimov’s i,Robot series, I imagine we’d have seen the Orwellian brand of dystopian literature change dramatically (1984 preceded i,Robot by only a year). Just as many say that were Orwell alive now he’d see that his vision was, indeed, near-prophetic with his views on the perception of knowledge (*cough*Wikipedia*cough*).

Let me put it this way, when asked what people believe the future will be like you often get the same default response (and you have done for more than a century). That is, flying cars, servile robots and the world will be ruled by DAMN DIRTY APES! Plus, if more and more information becomes solely digitised and the ravages of time deteriorate anything else, then creating beings that have, in essence, a digital mind means that the robots are the gatekeepers to human history. What’s to stop them from changing it, and why should any human believe anything different when all that exists for reference is this database of information?

2) Inhibit their emotions – or their heads will explode!

If a human leads the inevitable robot uprising and decides to kidnap humans, cut out their brains and put them in huge robot suits, then the most important things that person must do (if they have to do it at all) is to make sure that the cybermen……uh, I mean robots…..have no emotions. Imagine if they could see themselves, realise themselves as a brain inside a robot – they’d go insane.

And as we know, when that happens robotic heads will explode.

1) They’ll be back!

When Arnie’s famous line was first used, nobody knew just how right he would be. If there’s one thing that every robotics scientist must consider before they put together their automated abominations, it’s that machines-don’t-die! Just the fact that every major sci-fi film, particularly ones that feature robots or otherwise dystopian futures, keep having sequels should prove that the machine is never truly defeated. Granted, this is usually simply a plot device used to squeeze more money out of the increasingly bored audience – but, if done right, the way in which a believed long-dead automaton advisary can be chillingly possible.

If we’re talking about artificial intelligence then we talk of making sentient machine beings that are as close to humans as possible, undoubtedly meaning that they will share our inate evolutionary need for survival. Even if we introduce the three laws (see 5), then the machine’s need for survival, and from that realisation of it’s mechanoid mortality, then it will most likely take steps, pre-emptively, to survive a shutdown (or blue screen of death). Which, for a digital mind, can be as simple as making a backup of your computer, plus they don’t age and can effectively maintain themselves, meaning they’ll outlive us by far. Whatever we do to stop them, they will be back.

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 12th, 2009 at 1:27 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.