In class on Thursday, we discussed the Asimov short story’s that we had to read along with the investigative piece on our criminal justice system. The discussion of probability arose amongst the class. Probability is the designated value between 0 and 1 for the likelihood that an event will occur or not. In my Management 102 class that I took this past fall, a huge portion of our class involved solving probabilities of different events, and then reporting them to a company to help their decision-making processes. Many of the times, if I computed an even to have a .1 probability of happening, we would convert that to a 10% chance (easier for humans to understand). Converting to this percentage chance allowed us to quickly advice decisions based on my interpretation of this number. In this case, anytime I see a low number like 10% I interpret it as: the event will not occur.

To put this into perspective, say the event of it raining today has a 10% chance of happening. We all will assume that it will not rain, and will most likely choose to not bring a raincoat. If it ends up raining, most people would be shocked because they interpreted the 10% in their mind that it wont rain instead of interpreting it as a number that is not 0 meaning rain is always possible. This wrong interpretation of percentages happens all the time in the world around us. Recently, it was stated that before Election Day, Hillary Clinton had a 65% chance of winning the presidential race. Because of this high percentage, and our human impulsive to further simplify numbers, people assumed Hillary had it in the bag. However when the election came to a close, Trump “surprised” voters and ended up winning the race. The real point of this situation is how the voters were surprised that Trump won. Hillary’s 65% made people automatically and faithfully assume a clear and easy win. They should not have been as shocked as they were because it never said that Trumps chance of winning was 0; meaning it was still possible for him to win. Contrary to popular belief and speculation, the original reporting of the likelihood of Hillary winning was not wrong. What was wrong was people’s interpretation of what that percent actually meant.

People’s need to interpret everything is our strength and our flaw. Interpretation helps people get a better read on social situations, and shortens the decision making process. However, it is also our flaw because people are too quick to jump to conclusions before understanding the information at hand. This human flaw was exemplified in All The Troubles In The World by Isaac Asimov. The people working for Multivac were so accustomed to the accuracy and precision of the machine that they made a fundamental error. When Multivac told the government that Mr. Manners was planning on trying to destroy Multivac, they automatically assumed it was Joseph Manners because they interpreted this act to be so radical, only an adult would be capable. The people did not even check to see if there was a child still being reported under the name of Mr. Manners (a fundamental procedure of the system). Multivac chose this family on purpose because it knew that our flaw of interpretation would allow this plan to follow through. I think a point that Asimov was trying to make is that people are lazy and arrogant. After time, they do not do extra work to ensure they are right because they assume they will be right. I think this arrogance is also shown in how the government was running Multivac. They intelligently created a robot and a system to almost completely eradicate crime. While this was a huge feat, they did not consider the possibility that after time, Multivac could be filled with so much information that its intelligence capability would far surpass that of humans. This phenomenon is known as singularity. If this ever were to happen, it would not make sense for a human to run such an advanced system because they would have no idea what is going on. Human’s did not catch on to Multivac’s plan until it was almost too late. And even then, humans only caught on by a flaw of Multivac.

After reading Chapter 1 from the Rise of Robots, I gained a new insight on automation technology that I never considered before. If I am being completely honest, the idea of robots scares me. While I think the innovation in technology is absolutely amazing, the competitiveness in the field is what makes me worry. As it was said in the chapter, when Nintendo came out with the technology for the system to interpret three dimensions, Sony Corporations followed pursuit in the new technology. However, Microsoft (being a giant leader in the technological field) decided to go a step further with the idea in their creation of the Kinect add on game consol. The new systems technology improved the consumer experience, and impressed gamers with the affordable technology. While I think Microsoft’s invention is harmless, the competitive attitude among the different tech Company’s is evolving technology faster than I think is necessary. For that reason, I get nervous at what people will try to create next to one up their competitors. I do think a lot of testing and time goes into perfecting these technologies; but it is possible that the competitive nature in this field could make the manufactures miss a step in the process. With some of these robots producing cars, computers, and even exploiting bombs, I think people need to heir on caution with Automation systems creation for the safety of people.

On the other hand, I think Martin Ford brings up an excellent upside to the introduction of robots to manufacturing. These robots are becoming so cheap and efficient that they are influencing companies to bring their production back to the United States from China and Mexico. Many people criticize the automation systems because of the creative destruction that has resulted. Many people have lost their jobs, and they were replaced with technology that could do the job quicker, and with less financial risk. Despite this, I think it is more important for companies to move their production back to the United States because it is more beneficial to the American people. Although the companies will offer less jobs to people, the jobs they do offer would be better than the zero jobs that would be available in the United States in the production was somewhere in Mexico. Additionally, transportation costs will decrease as the production will be closer to the markets, and people might be able to reap the benefits in price reduction of some products. Lastly, production in the United States would overall benefit the American economy.

At this point in time, technological advancement is inevitable. I think that if we as a society monitor and accept these technologies as they come, we will be able to work together to enhance our daily lives, while also growing our economy. I think it is also time for the big tech companies to focus on innovations that will help solve our reliance on fossil fuels.

This week, we read a piece by Susan Leigh Anderson called Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics and Machine Metaethics. Susan Anderson discusses the idea of robots as agents of ethical decisions for our society. She explained how the future of robots might be training them to help humans make ethical decisions. I learned of the term called specieism, which is basically our preference over our own species. Specieism is innate and sometimes we do not realize how our actions naturally reflect this belief.

While all humans are considered the same species, we often break down our species further through race, ethnicity, religion, or gender. It has become human habit to breakup the human race into different subcategories to separate groups of people from each other. Over our existence, this specieism of people without our own racial group has enabled slavery, segregation, and other forms of discrimination. When humans have to make ethical decisions, it is easy for the speciealty to takeover in our decision making process. As we already know, all people are deserving of the same rights and consideration. This is a reason why robots could be good agents for ethical decision-making. A robot could be programmed to be fair and impartial of any race, gender, sexuality etc.

It is for this reason that I think it would be a good idea for Robot to be programmed to follow principles close to Kant. Kant explained a few principles that people should follow. One of them is the universality clause in which he states that you should make an ethical decision considering if you would want it to be followed universally including your own actions. The second clause sounds similar to the golden rule of treating others the way you would want to be treated. Kant’s ethical theories are good at preventing discrimination. There are many other ethical theories that a robot could be programmed with, but I think Kant’s ideas are of the utmost importance.

After learning the various different ethical theories in class this week, I have been drawn to the theory of Kant in regards to his categorical imperatives. His first categorical imperative states that you should morally act in ways that you would want to be universally implied. In other words, you have to think of applying a specific situation to a large scale, as if this one situation would set precedent for every other situation to come. Additionally, apply your moral decision as if it would be decided unto you. For example, if you want to lie to a friend about not having money to help them pay for a soda, you have to be okay with that same friend lying to you about having money when you need money to buy a soda. The second categorical imperative that Kant explains is the idea that you should never use people or things as a means to an end. Many people use Kant’s ethical theory because it tries to prevent discrimination against people.

While I was reading the Bicentennial Man, I immediately began to think about Kant’s theory in relation to Andrew and his basic rights. At one point in the story, two men go up to Andrew and tell him to dismember himself. At this point in the story, I had grown an extreme liking to Andrew because I got the impression that he actually experienced emotion and was similar to humans. I was upset when the men told Andrew to dismember himself because I know no human would ever be subjected to this demand or taunting. In the programming of robots, 3 rules are always followed. The first of which is that a robot should never kill or cause harm to a human; the second is a robot should always be obedient to a human, unless it would break the first rule. After this scene, I began to reason with Kant’s first categorical imperative as it applies to the 3 basic laws of robots’ functioning. These laws should be held universally to all things created, not just humans. It should not be okay for these men to degrade and humiliate Andrew, when the act would never be done unto them. The rules should be revised to state “A robot should be obedient to humans unless it caused harm to humans, or to themselves/ other robots”.

The second categorical imperative also is questioned in this story. This imperative states that people should never knowingly use others for their own benefit. In the beginning of the story, George uses to Andrew to help make him hundreds of thousands of dollars. At this point in the story, you assume Andrew to be a robot, so this imperative might not apply. However, as the story developed, I began to see Andrew in the likeliness of a human. When Andrew gains his “freedom” and owns himself, I no longer saw him as a robot. He was a functioning member of society. In Andrew’s case, I think the second categorical imperative should then apply. People should not be able to use Andrew as any means to their end. George, or anyone else, should not be able to order around Andrew for their personal gain.

Although I do think Andrew should have the same rights as a human based on Kantanism, I am utterly terrified by this idea. I do not think people will ever understand the capability of robots. Even though we create them, I think they have the capability to adapt far faster than a human can realize and understand. In other words, robots might be able to manipulate humans if we do not take them seriously. In a movie I watched called Ex Machina, an artificial intelligence fools her creator, and tricks a guy into thinking she love him. Her lover tries to free her, and she ends up killing both the men and escaping into the real world, surrounded by people who might never know she is not a “human”. In this scenario, the artificial intelligence is so advanced, that people will assume she is a human and she will have the human rights that Andrew did not have in the story. This is scary to me because in theory, she deserves the same rights as humans, which could be dangerous. People are creating these robots as a means to their end, but are making them so advanced that their roles could be reversed. Like Ex Machina, robots could end up using people as means to their end. I agree with the main principles of Kantanism, therefore, I think that if a robot was ever created to be just like a human, they deserve the same rights as us. However, it is because of this that I am hesitant of the creation of such robots, because of the danger they might pose to our society.

In Thursday’s class session, we analyzed the ending of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court. The book ends with Hank Morgan orchestrating a mass execution of thousands of knights in an all out war between the Yankee, and the Church. Hank Morgan spent years building up the technological advancements, and gaining the trust of the people. I think it was an interesting twist at the end of the book that had Hank destroying everything that he had created. It is ironic because if anything, you would think that the Church would be the one to destroy the factories that Hank built. I find this situation similar to what happened during World War 2 with Nazi Germany.

Hitler and the Nazis built thousands of concentration camps and risked everything to try to create the perfect race. Similar to Hank, they thought they were pushing the time forward by getting rid of what they seemed to be inferior people or technology. Hank killed thousands of knights during the war, and the Nazis killed millions of people. At the end of the war, the Nazis tried to destroy the concentration camps and scientific labs before the Soviet Union and Western Allies captured them. This situation is just like the end of the book. The Nazi’s and Hank did not want to accept defeat, so they destroyed their work before anyone else could. It might not seem right to compare Nazi Germany or Hitler to Hank Morgan. In the beginning of the book, it is easy to like Hank because you think he has good intentions. He only wants to help the people and make their lives easier and more worth living. However, towards the end of the book when Hank begins to introduce dangerous technology like weapons and the electric fence, you begin to question Hank’s intentions. Before you can even realize, Hank turns from being a savior to being a villain.

In the grand scheme of things, Hank manipulated the 6^th century’s weaknesses to help him gain power. He saw their lack of sophisticated education, and the weakness in the social system as a means to his end. He was using people to strengthen his status and authority. At the end of WW1, Germany was broken. People were poor, hungry and desperate. Hitler recognized this and tried to rebuild the country. The Germans were so broken; they saw Hitler’s first intentions as godly. He was their savior and was going to restore the German name. Hitler used his national following to manipulate the people into a mass execution. Talking about it today, people always wonder how it was possible for a man with the intentions like Hitler to gain so much power of the people. It is the same reason why Hank Morgan gained the following that he did. To explain this I am going to use an analogy. If you have a brain tumor that has compromised your ability to walk, your life is pretty miserable. But if a brain surgeon comes into the room and promises you a 100% cure using this brand new technology, most people would agree to it, not even understanding the new technology. When people make promises to change your life for the “better”, it is only human nature to accept and worship these people. There is an uncanny trust between the people who make these promises, and those that are broken. I think A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court demonstrates the idea that hope and trust is very powerful tool when it comes to human interaction. Hank originally gave people hope in the future, and therefore gained his trust. Ultimately, the end of the book results in the people turning their back on Hank, because the Church destroys Hank’s credibility and people’s hope for a new future.