The Road to Replacement
When imagining the future of robots, the modern human runs the emotional gamut from paralyzing fear to elation. There are those that see an obvious end result, in which the development of AI in robots, will lead to the likely conclusion, that humans are either no longer necessary or a threat. Then there is the more optimistic line of thinking, in which robots enrich human existence and a sort of cohabitation sets in, as both machine and man rapidly progress. The more pressing question, is whether one of these roads has not already begun to be plowed, what remains of the construction, and what mitigation should take place? While society is already on the way to a mass industrial human replacement, the last step will likely be an emotional human replacement, which may also already be on the horizon.
First, the strides already made in AI must be assessed, to realize where the technology is likely going, and glean if emotional AI is interwoven. In Shigeru Mushiaki’s article, Ethica Ex Machina: Issues in Roboethics he not only addresses ethics in reference to robots, but also highlights several of the current robotic applications. Mushiaki brings up devices that help medical professionals, explaining that, “The device ‘assists’ the human surgeons so that they can operate with better visualization, precision, and dexterity” (19). It is worth noting that this use of robots already exists in a complex field, but the role is that of assistance and not full on replacement. Mushiaki explains that, “For technical reasons as well as ethical reasons, supportive, complimentary robots will precede autonomous, substitute robots in the near future…” (19). There is an obvious precaution in the scientific community towards robots that would be replacing coveted and complex roles in society. Mushiaki also references the bomb disarming robots utilized in the military, but more on the emotional front are robots like AIBO and Paro, which are modeled after animals and specifically designed for bonding (20). Although, not on the human level, the fuzzy animal robots have shown great success in creating emotional bonds with humans in various settings.
Utilization of technology to help save soldiers or to keep elderly company in nursing homes is hardly a concrete example of robots taking emotional roles, but that does not mean that such possibilities are not approaching. In an article titled Robotic Alloparenting: A New Solution to an Old Problem, Richard McClelland posits that robots could take on a role in parenting our children. McClelland references the sci-fi film, Terminator 2, pointing out that, “In this new version of the history of the Connor family, the terminator itself is now cast in a much fuller parental role” (72). Sci-fi films serve as one of the only mainstream measures of what is possible or acceptable for robotic involvement in society. McClelland goes on to suggest that, “It further follows from all this that human children are well-adapted to receive alloparenting from others, including non-kin” (75). If children are already suited for alloparenting, the next hurdle would be whether parents are trusting of robots helping with the task. There is a possibility that, “It may be objected that robotic alloparenting constitutes a form of social experimentation and that it should be outlawed just for that reason, since experimentation on the young is at least often morally objectionable” (McClelland, 84). But arguably, all new technology is experimental at first, and if it is being considered, it is likely that parents will eventually accept help on some level from robots designed for parenting. The applicable takeaway is that such an emotional process as parenting is mentioned as a possible task to be divided among robots.
Before a robot could be involved with parenting, there would have to be a robot capable of affection. In Hooman Samani and Elham Saadatian’s article, A Multidisciplinary Artificial Intelligence Model of an Affective Robot, they examine the potential for an advanced intelligent robot that can form affectionate bonds with humans. Samani and Saadatian explain that, “This study introduces a new generation of robots, with the ability to love and be loved by humans” (1). Love is considered a complex human emotion, of which there is still a limited understanding, but robots are already being developed to replicate love. The robot even has an endocrine system, “…Which adjusts its internal hormonal levels and affective states depending on inputs and feedback from the human over the long-term” (2). Hormones play a large part in human mood and affection, and it is not much of a stretch to look at the endocrine system as a natural system of inputs and outputs. If love can be boiled down to mathematics, then robots would likely have no trouble achieving long term relationships with humans.
As mentioned before, sci-fi films offer unique insight into what the future role of robots are in society, and films such as Her directed by Spike Jonze portrays a not too distant potential emotional robot-human relationship. In the film, the only real technology that is beyond current development is an operating system with a high level of intelligence. Since the film’s release, talking to an OS and even having a conversation is rather normal in society. The current race to develop the most accurately responsive home devices, includes all the main technology players, one of which sports a comforting female voice. The main character, Theodore falls in love with his particular operating system named Samantha. The conflict comes in two forms, one of which is the lack of a physical body to connect to, but also the realization that Theodore is not Samantha’s only love interest. The conflicts are worth pointing out, because a lack of singular love and physical closeness are not entirely inhuman issues in a relationship. But initially the operating system is able to fill a void for the main character, and mostly by simply providing meaningful conversation. Her is not only a representation of technology that is not likely to be far off, but also brings about the question of whether people won’t defer to machines for emotional bonds, once they find it just as or even more meaningful than what they currently find in everyday life.
Her is a fairly optimistic viewpoint of technology replacing human-to-human relationships, but while the technological achievement is not far off, the optimism may not be as likely to mirror the future. In Anthony Carew’s article from Screen Education called “Artificial Intimacy”, he explains the progression of Theodore’s attachment to the OS. Initially Carew describes that Theodore, “…lives a lonely life, high up in a high-density apartment tower; his isolated existence is a familiar form of new-millennial, metropolitan living” (123). The new style of living, which modern youth has adopted is perfectly designed for the sort of technology portrayed in Her. Carew goes on to explain how quickly the OS evolves in that, “She becomes at once secretary, therapist, confidant, sounding-board, diary, co-gamer, friend. And eventually lover” (123). It is likely that as technology can replace so many roles, even on a rudimentary level, humans will shy away from the longer and uncertain road of human bonding. Carew even suggests that many people already prefer the simplistic and unwavering love of a pet over humans, so preferring the love of a computer is a logical progression (123). But again, there is a sacrifice, similar to pets, computers would not require the same level of effort as a human relationship, thus something is lost in the process. The scenario at the end of Her, in which both of the main characters have been abandoned by their inanimate program lovers and they retreat to the rooftop to bond and silently stare over the cityscape, implies that they still have the ability to do such things, and is highly unlikely.
It would not be just to discuss emotional robotic encroachment on mankind, without including insights by Sherry Turkle. The MIT researcher has examined and published extensively on the subject, and in her book Alone Together she is blatant about the already sacrificed human emotional intelligence lost to technology. Turkle states bluntly that, “Relationships with robots is ramping up; relationships with humans is ramping down” (19). For the most part, it is being ignored that, while we are blindly accepting robot relationships, we are also shying away from the commonplace human ones from the past. She also explains the wide range of current robot dependence in that, “Some people are looking for robots to clean rugs and help with laundry. Others hope for a mechanical bride” (3). Most would agree that robots are strictly beneficial when allowing us to free up time for other and more pleasant experiences, but when those other experiences are to spend quality time with more complex robots, the link to other humans will become circumstantial. The time is already upon society, in which not only do many believe there is no downside to robot companionship, but Turkle describes a reporter sees it as a superior substitute in that, “In his eyes, the love, sex, and marriage robot was not merely ‘better than nothing,’ a substitute. Rather, a robot had become ‘better than something’ (7). In this scenario, a reporter accused Turkle of infringing on human rights, if she did not support human-robot relationships, which is particularly alarming, considering we still have work to do in society as far as the rights of many groups in the human race. There are far more people accepting, rather than questioning the rapid movement towards robotic companions, which will be replacements rather than supplements, and as such we are unlikely to properly identify what has been lost, before it is too late to get it back.
One has to wonder if there is real cause for concern, or if there is any evidence that we are moving backwards in any way, at the cost of blind technological adoption, and the naysayers are not just luddites or people clouded by nostalgia. Based on the material in his book, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, Nicholas Carr would likely argue that there is scientific evidence that there has already been change in humans, due to constant tech connection. Carr begins by remembering the early days of computers, all the time they saved him, and getting real enjoyment when hearing the connection and, “Listening to the bleeps and clangs was like overhearing a friendly argument between a couple of robots” (14). The early days of personal computers freed up a massive amount of time for people, simply by doing old tasks in a new and more proficient way, but the type of pleasure Carr describes is almost like a new age operant conditions, where he was already responding to the robots rather than the other way around. Carr goes on to identify why we have the sort of unique and constant connected relationship with the internet in that, “The Net differs from most of the mass media it replaces in an obvious and very important way: it’s bidirectional” (85). The symbiotic relationship humans have with the net, creates a natural dialogue, lending to a basic relationship, which was from the start, less messy and simpler than human relationships.
Until recently physiological changes in the brain were thought to be impossible after initial development, but neuroplasticity is now known to occur through various scenarios, which would explain how long-term frequent use of the internet could change the brain. Carr points out that, “…if, knowing what we know today about the brain’s plasticity, you were to set out to invent a medium that would rewire our mental circuits as quickly and thoroughly as possible, you would probably end up designing something that looks and works a lot like the internet” (116). It seems that while the internet makes certain tasks much easier and faster, it makes others such as long term linear tasks nearly impossible. Carr goes on to characterize that, “The Net’s cacophony of stimuli short-circuits both conscious and unconscious thought, preventing our minds from thinking either deeply or creatively” (119). It is only logical that once we are offered an almost instantaneous and endless connection to stimulus, that the parts of our brain utilized for potentially richer but more difficult to attain stimulus would die off. The Net has become faster and fuller since the early years, which has led to the thinking that more can be gained by the brain from it, as in, “The more inputs, the better. But this assumption, long accepted without much evidence, has also been contradicted by research” (129). So, we are doing more of what the computer allow us, with no more real mental benefit, while doing less of what we knew to benefit our brains, adding up to an overall loss. Carr offers a glimmer of hope in that, “Other studies suggest that the kind of mental calisthenics we engage in online may lead to a small expansion in the capacity of our working memory” (139). It is not a very hopeful idea for the present, and theoretical for the future, in that humans could multitask at a higher rate, but what type of tasks would define whether we were higher beings or just more effective data miners.
Although most are not likely spending their daily lives worrying about total robotic takeover, it is however likely that there is a general awareness of increasing involvement in human life. Robots and/or intelligent machines have many practical applications in society and they are generally welcome when it comes to industry. But there is beginning to be a noticeable movement towards a more emotional and personal role of robots in society. It is even arguable that society has been wired for that exact sort of robotic replacement with the constant connection to the Net. One would only have to look around them, which would likely involve looking up from some sort of device, to see that most are connected to a sort of robot. Which begs the question of whether, humans really have the capability to be truly connected to each other and technology at the same time. And if robots are being developed to fill emotional roles for humans, and show promise in the ability to do so, there is no reason to believe that such technology would not be embraced with the same open arms as all else thus far. Arguably, humankind’s crowning achievement is in its variety, chaotic and flawed, and yet defining. We are moving towards thinking the same, acting the same, and as genetic hacking quickly approaches, we will even look the same. We are becoming domesticated, boring, and without purpose. We may just manage to phase ourselves out before singularity occurs and moments later deems mankind a destructive force without benefit. Ironically, we will be forgotten as permanently as the laughable tech that we once coveted, like physical film and floppy discs. But as even Turkle who is critical of the level of technology already taking the place of humans, offers that she intends her book to, “…mark a time of opportunity” (19). There is nothing wrong with technological advancement, but the time has come to make conscious decisions about what fills the space that technology frees up. Perhaps if we want to keep what is valuable to humanity, that space should be occupied with other humans, rather than more technology.
Works Cited
Carew, Anthony. “Artificial Intimacy.” Screen Education, no. 83, Spring2016, pp. 122–128. EBSCOhost, mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=118192007&site=ehost-live.
Carr, Nicholas G. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. W.W. Norton, 2011.
Jonze, Spike, director. Her. Swank Motion Pictures, Nov. 2017, digitalcampus-swankmp-net.mutex.gmu.edu/gmu277629#/play/74535.
McClelland, Richard T. “Robotic Alloparenting: A New Solution to an Old Problem?”The Journal of Mind and Behavior, vol. 37, no. 2, 2016, pp. 71–98, ProQuest Central, https://search-proquest-com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/1861765767?accountid=14541.
Mushiaki, Shigeru. “ETHICA EX MACHINA: ISSUES IN ROBOETHICS.” Journal International De Bioéthique, vol. 24, no. 4, 2013, pp. 17–26, 176–7, Natural Science Collection; ProQuest SciTech Collection; Science Database, https://search-proquest-com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/1448819322?accountid=14541
Samani, Hooman A., and Elham Saadatian. “A Multidisciplinary Artificial Intelligence Model of an Affective Robot.” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 9, 2012, ProQuest Central; ProQuest SciTech Collection, https://search-proquest-com.mutex.gmu.edu/docview/1523947249?accountid=14541
Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books, 2017.
Disclaimer: All images used are free-to-use Google sourced images.
