The Problem of Anthropomorphism in Roboethics: a Critical Study

There exists a great number of intellectual men and women who occupy themselves with creating a non-human intelligence, usually with materials atypical of lifeforms. These intellectuals debate the merits of intelligence, without being able to provide a proper definition of it… offering qualifications such as: “we’ll know it when we see it”, or appealing to pragmatic considerations such as: “it doesn’t matter if what we make is actually intelligent, what matters is merely whether it appears intelligent to us”. Large and lofty debates take place, and when all the hot air rises we are left with more questions than answers… patiently awaiting the fantastical robotic futurisms of great poets, such as Ray Kurzweil, to (intentionally) walk on to the world-stage, and tell us how much they are like us, while being superior in every way.

Alan Turing

Alan Turing, an intellectual man, set humankind on the direction outlined above through his paper, “Computing Machinery, and Intelligence”. Turing, in a very dialectical way, asked himself the difficult question: “can machines think?”, and from there he developed a ‘thinking’ test inspired by the ‘imitation game’, a 1950’s British party favourite, second only to drunk men dressing up as women. The test, now known as ‘the Turing test’, is the ultimate form of pragmatic exercise– it allows us to overcome the difficulties of doing actual foundational work, and jumps right to the conclusion: assume non-human intelligence is a possibility… then add interrogation– an approach that has more in common with instant ramen than academic thought.

Examining the Turing test further, with perhaps an even more critical eye, it becomes obvious that all the presumptions that go in to his implied foundation are all totally anthropomorphic. We presume thinking, or intelligence, involves speech, words, language, perception, and memory– our whole pragmatic understanding of intelligence seems to be forged in our anthropomorphic biases against animals… we assume ourselves intelligent and assume animals are not, then we tally up the differences between animals and ourselves, and, while exclaiming ‘eureka’ at the top of our lungs, consider the problem of intelligence closed.

To bolster our anthropomorphic follies, we create other spectral considerations that are even more dubious than our foundation itself: concepts such as ‘sentience’, ‘consciousness’, ‘intentionality’, etc. We proclaim human beings have these ‘qualities’ by virtue of their intelligence… and that other intelligent beings will have them too, because these ‘qualities’ must be intrinsic to intelligent beings; the loop is now closed in the most circular of ways… and when one of these intrinsic ‘qualities’ is dispelled, we can create new and more complicated versions of said ‘qualities’, eluding all refutation in the most maniacal of ways. For all we know, consciousness is akin to a video recorder hooked up to a speak-and-spell… add a couple of external sensors and you have sentience; as for intentionality, if it actually mattered, half (if not much more) of the human race would never have been born.

Termite Mound

If any of these most excellent, intellectual thinkers are to ever create or discover a non-human intelligence, they will need to subdue their child-like exuberance and accept the possibility that humans aren’t actually intelligent at all– perhaps we have a few tricks unique to our species, but there is nothing to say they are all that much better than a termite’s ability to build a mound, or a bird’s ability to sing its call. Another possibility worth considering is we have already created a non-human intelligence when we created the first computer, and, as a species, we are incapable of recognizing this non-human intelligence even while it sits in front of our faces; this ability to recognize other intelligences is a skill we did not require for survival, and therefore it never evolved in us… except for perhaps in a handful of Disney characters, such as Cinderella, who is able to both understand, and speak to birds, mice, and others with ease.

If we can cure our anthropomorphic maladies, reject the fantasies of maligned futurists, and do the hard foundational work required of us, we may begin to gleam the knowledge of what it is to be human, and from there we might begin to understand other forms of life.

Boy Meets Girl

Try and cut through the symbolism of this one… GOOD LUCK!

Monozukuri, Kaizen, Karakuri Ningyo. Why Roboethics is Really Psychoanalysis…

Maria, as imagined in Fritz Lang's "Metropolis".

The concept of “anthropomorphized robots” has pervaded Western consciousness since Fritz Lang’s momentous film, “Metropolis“.  The robot in Lang’s masterpiece, Maria, instantiates her Leninist-like program in order to destroy the aristocratic class for the benefit of the proletariat. Radical political sentiments aside, Maria represented a hardened human desire– a leviathan like culmination of hopes, desires, and technical skills– a menacing essence meant to bring justice to the classes of the technically-abled and exploited.  Maria took the form of a female human-being, but she could have easily have been designed after the likes of a more menacing and efficient murderous-animal… but this distinction, her embodiment as being human-like, is central and directly related to our own cognitive capacities to empathize.  Our tendency to empathize with the anthropomorphic is really what sits at the core of our understanding of “roboethics”… a tendency that has a long and storied history going back to at least 17th century Japan– a country, that by no coincidence, is at the fore of the robotic-revolution.

Japan, given both its seclusion and rich history, has been the progenitor of a great number of theoretical and practical philosophies; two such noteworthy philosophies are “monozukuri“, the process of creating things, and “kaizen“, continuous improvement.  Although they may appear to be obscure foreign ideals from antiquity, both philosophies are in service and still the focus of study.  Japan’s transformation from a post-feudal agrarian society, to an economic and manufacturing powerhouse was largely driven by kaizen and monozukuri principles– for example, the Toyota Production System, which revolutionized the car-manufacturing process, through concepts such as “just-in-time” inventory, was founded within the traditions of kaizen and monozukuri.  These manufacturing philosophies developed at a time of great social change in Japan, when new ideas and new peoples were beginning to make contact with the island-nation.  Japan, following a historically predictable pattern, began to adapt innovations from the enlightenment such as mechanically driven objects, with the same monozukuri craftsmanship-ethos that had existed for centuries.  The resultant product of this fusion of ideas were perhaps Japan’s first robot: “karakuri ningyo” or the mechanical doll.

These dolls became a popular product in Japan due to both the craftsmanship that went in to their production, but also due to Japan’s history and culture of doll collection— the most typical use for a mechanical doll was in the serving of tea.

A typical Tea Serving Mechanical Doll dating to the Edo period

At a little less than a foot-high, these tiny mechanical devices were designed to look similar to “hinamatsuri ningyo” or  ‘Girls Day’ dolls.  ‘Girls Day’ dolls were modeled after a traditional Japanese court, and they originated from ancient animistic practices devised to encapsulate ‘bad-spirits’ in inanimate, human-like objects so that they may be flushed out of existence by being thrown in to the local river.  The ‘Girls Day’ dolls are highly regarded, and are to this day, laid out for display once a year.

Girls enjoying Hinamatsuri Dolls on 'Girls Day'

Japan has been dominated by an animistic belief system since prehistoric times which has developed in to what is known today as ‘Shintosim’.  Shintoism is not so much a religion, but a cultural, and historical system that espouses one core belief: that everything has a “kami” or spirit.  This applies to everything from ‘Girls‘ Day‘ dolls to  mechanical dolls, to robotics.  This belief is so pervasive that when, for example, a mechanical doll broke, the owners would feel remorse and hold funeral processions for their beloved servants.

Feeling sentiment for objects is hardly a Japanese phenomenon, it’s a common trait of human culture to anthropomorphize things.  Our natural tendency to anthropomorphize allows us to intuitively and naturally connect with objects on an emotional (and comprehensible) level through the projection of one’s personality into the thing.  This tendency seems to be closely connected to, or perhaps a byproduct of our abilities to empathize.  Human beings are capable of empathizing with one another, and even with nonhuman animals— in evolutionary theory, the ability to empathize has served an advantage that has been reinforced through group selection over time, through perhaps an increase in hunting ability, or increased chances in group survival.

Our feelings towards robots and other anthropomorphized machines, such as the mechanical doll, are more a question of psychoanalysis– the question should not be centred around how we should treat robots, but rather why we create emotional attachments to them– making this an ethically prudential question, rather than something requiring a morally-universal insight.  Plato, Aquinas, and Kant all shared similar moral theories surrounding the human treatment of nonhuman animals that seems pertinent given the prudential nature of the robot moral problem.  For these philosophers, the treatment of non-human animals was wrong in the way it tends to harden one’s heart towards fellow humans.  For example, it would be sensible for us to be suspicious of a person who uses robots for sexual gratification through the use of abuse or degradation– not because there is anything inherently wrong with treating a robot in this regard, but because of how this person may feel or treat fellow human beings as a result of his or her fetish.  Moral Psychologists and psychoanalysts would be in the best position to test Plato, Aquinas, and Kant’s assertions in a scientific and controlled way— there is a possibility that “the human heart” doesn’t harden at all, and that the maltreatment of robots could be beneficial to the often stressed human psyche.

The dream of thinking-machines is really, currently, just a dream.  Until we can unravel the mysteries of the human-mind, we may not be capable of even recognizing a nonhuman intelligence— applying Wittgenstein’s theories,

Philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein

we could never be in agreement on the level of the ‘form of life’ of a robot, making communication (and understanding) an impossibility. If we are able to understand what human intelligence is, are able to disprove Wittgenstein, and overcome all the other great barriers preventing humanity from creating an artificial but intelligent being, speaking of other-regarding roboethics is merely a futile exercise in academic fancy.

Art

I am Sleepless…

Great song by Lo-Fi-Fnk… can’t wait for the North American release!

Sleepy Ottawa Autumn

A beautiful September day in Ottawa

The end of Summer

Do you feel it yet?  I sure do…  A beautiful Hokusai print summarizes this feeling marvellously.

Art

Summer of 2010

This is how I will always remember the Summer of 2010… Sharing the Akihabara Majokko Princess with Maxine, My Lonesome Cowboy, and beautiful Hiropon… This is the Summer of 2010 from my eyes.

Hanging Out Above Ottawa

Ottawa CollageA collage of the view from my friend’s patio at Bank & Laurier in cheery Ottawa… Click for large version.

Controlling Information – The Military versus Wikileaks

Recently, a great number of military documents were stolen by a kindred officer who released them to a third party tasking itself with freeing information from the barricaded chambers of government… pushing information in to the public domain– an ethical quest that has hardly gone unnoticed.  The debate is still ablaze, searing and charring all those involved.  Two clear positions have materialized: the reactions of a hypocritical government, versus the platitudes of its citizenry.  What is missing is a clear philosophical appraisal, an elucidation of ethics– something I would like to try and provide.

“Information wants to be free”– a platitude that echoes true within the hearts of any genuine democratists, but does it hold universally?  In the quest to do what is right, and to preserve a way of life, the American Military has withheld information from the public– an act that has surely been measured against the many alternative scenarios available.  So now that this information is common knowledge, what should the American Military do?  It’s important to view the ethical actions behind the debate, and the reasons why these events took place– I believe this will help provide a course of action for the future.

The first conflict worth observing is the one which takes place in the minds of American citizenry– between the inherent freedom of information, and the government’s necessity for withholding it.  One example often recited is the capture of Osama Bin Laden… an act that, by its very nature, requires secrecy.  It would be nearly impossible to catch Bin Laden if all military movements were in the public domain– ultimately this state of affairs requires an examination of the ethics underlying it.  It is clear that capturing Bin Laden is the morally correct thing to do, it is not necessarily the ethically correct thing to do.  There are a great number of tactics the American government could have undertaken when dealing with Bin Laden… they could have just as easily funded and bolstered his position in order to infiltrate and identify his cadre, or they could have simply chosen to ignore him, and continued on a course of action that produced the maximal amount of stability and security, at the minimal cost.

The reality is, the American Government chose to purse the capture of Osama Bin Laden, and to destroy his harbingers– which, I would argue, is the ethically incorrect strategy– creating a further uncertainty: should an unethical strategy, such as capturing Bin Laden, be buttressed by an ethical one, such as freeing information?  The answer: it’s not logically possible to support an unethical situation with an ethical one.  An unethical strategy can only be supported by another unethical position, with the distinct possibility that the conclusion of this seemingly maligned strategy is an outcome that is morally correct.  Keeping information free is clearly the most ethically correct way of conducting a democracy, but it conflicts with the moral thing… capturing Bin Laden– so, the morally right thing, consequently, requires an unethical strategy.

Given that the loss of sensitive military information took place through the use of CD-RWs and social engineering…  the solution seems obvious to me: the military needs to proprietarize it’s information and technology systems.  If they wish to keep secrets in the future, they will need an IT infrastructure that is both hierarchical, and mirrors the systems of organisation the officers and commanders are already established in.

The American Military technology infrastructure should be redesigned from the ground up– its officers should be working on a proprietary operating system, on systems with proprietary hardware.  The access and use of all sensitive information should be centrally controlled, by a central computer system that manages and approves the requests to access confidential information… a centralized system that enables use on whatever device necessary, on an ad-hoc basis.  All information contained in this system should be encrypted, and the transportation of it should be regulated and tracked through the use of proprietary hardware vectors.  Ultimately, any piece of data should be traceable at any given moment, and its access approvable or revokable through a chain of command.

The approach of the government, and military, should not be to react to wikileaks, or to find and punish its founder Julian Assange… it should be to let this leaking organisation flounder, while strengthening and proprietarizing the ways in which the military works with information.  Furthermore, political and bureaucratic influences on the military need to be eliminated, especially if the military is ever to be expected to do its job properly.  Politicians should work to publicize military commanders in order to diffuse the blame that gravitates towards their careers, and bureaucrats should exclude themselves from involvement in the creation of military policy.

The solution above is perhaps not one that the most vocal citizenry desire… unfortunately, the platitudinal approach the vocal few espouse is simply an impossibility.  It is possible that a moral outcome can be arrived at through unethical means, and if the public wishes to attack military policy– it should do so based on the moral core of the situation, and not the ethics that the military strategy has henceforwardly required.

I would argue there are a great deal of other ways to deal with this situation, but I think the most trying and challenging approach involves working within the current system… not rewriting it from scratch.  The future holds a great deal of possibility, but this future will need to be mitigated by the efforts of ethicists, especially as the system in question becomes long in the tooth.

More on World Order…

Genki Sudo is back shifting minds at a staid pace. Remember: We Are One!