Commentary on "Why the future doesn't need us"

I want to remember these points in case I ever have the opportunity to work on Skynet. This is my commentary, with reference to "Why the future doesn't need us" by Bill Joy.

The author begins with a request that the reader assume that machine intelligence will progress to a point where machines can do many things better than humans can. Indeed, this has already happened in many domains and the chest of activities which “only humans” can perform becomes emptier each year. The assumption does not seem all that unreasonable.

If robots become better at doing everything that humans used to do, then where does that leave humankind? The answer may arise from examining the history of technology. The original Luddites were textile artisans who were replaced by steam machines which operated at drastically higher efficiencies. The Luddites protested by vandalizing the machines which had replaced them, but their rebellion was quickly suppressed by the British government. At this point in history, humans were no longer the best at producing large amounts of textile goods. Even today, no human could possibly compete with even a modest mass-production machine. The only hope for a human artisan would be in producing a higher quality good for customers. A human can add value by making something that is more artistic or of an especially high quality in the eyes of their customers. For example, some people would pay more for a handmade rug because they know that there will be some tiny flaws that a machine would not produce.

This begs the question then, if robots eventually become more skilled at producing everything, then will humans not all be forced into the position of the Luddites?  The simplest human efforts have been replaced first, but this does not mean that humanity’s highest cognitive functions are safe. What if machines become capable of outputting musical masterpieces which can express the most guarded emotions of human existence, then will there ever be need for another Mozart? If machines are one day able to instantly generate doleful verse which evoke great feeling within the reader, will humankind need another Shakespeare? If machines are, some day, more capable at sharing profound love with a person, would this person ever yearn to speak to a human again? The answers are clear; humankind would become obsolete.

Alternatively, one might envisage an opposite future in which the machines become superior in their capacity for destruction. This is also one of humanity’s strong suits. If the robots grow beyond human control, perhaps they will decide that the paramount experiences of human existence are inefficient and pointless. Perhaps artistic expression, love, creativity and the other joys of being alive will become obsolete before humans do.

Ironically, it is the very nature of humankind to blossom towards its own obsolescence. Human creativity uses old ideas to spit out newer, better ideas. The unquestionable tenet of continued progress drives humans to accept and become familiar with new technologies. In the past, implements of destruction were of relatively small impact and could only affect their local surroundings. The unrelenting progress of humankind has allowed for previously unimaginable destructive power, especially in the 20^th century, but these technologies were difficult to acquire and exploit. In the 21^st century, there will be and already are beginning to be readily available tools to allow almost anyone to make a weapon of mass destruction.

For example, consider the impact of robotics in the field of 3D printing. As this technology develops, people will increasingly be able to manufacture almost anything within the comfort of their own home, perhaps even dangerous weapons if not properly controlled. Over fifty years ago, Churchill said, “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.” Because the rate of technological innovation is growing faster than exponentially, the article is wise to point out that humanity’s methods for safeguarding the technology against unethical exploitation simply cannot keep up. As the power of technology grows, so too do its associated risks. Technology is in the 21^st century and moving quickly whereas the goals of this technology are usually undefined. Humanity follows a path of technological determinism. Technology dictates how humans shall live their lives; it does not seek to better the way that humans currently live.

The article quotes an interesting point made by Oppenheimer after the development of the atomic bomb. He said, “It is not possible to be a scientist unless you believe that the knowledge of the world, and the power which this gives, is a thing which is of intrinsic value to humanity, and that you are using it to help in the spread of knowledge and are willing to take the consequences.” Perhaps some scientists succumb to an almost religious faith in believing that all new knowledge will improve the human condition. It is not unreasonable to think so; for a long time, it was generally true. With the development of robotics, humans must hold this notion not as a belief, but as a theory which must be tested against real experience. Robotic technology has the potential to serve humanity, but also to endanger it. Carl Sagan described two types of civilizations: one which would be able to survive the dangers of technological growth through reasonable restraint; by determining what ought to be and what ought never to be, and one which could not control its technological surge and would be wiped out like so many other species in evolutionary history. We humans have the intelligence to be the latter, but let us hope that we will have the wisdom to be the former.