Month: February 2017

The connection between the Bicentennial Man and Jim Crow laws of the 20^th century is inescapable. More specifically, in the Bicentennial Man there was a clear distinction between what is moral and what is lawful. When Sir gave Andrew a bank account he did not abide by the law, “’Sir, it is kind of you to have allowed me to spend my money as I wished…I don’t believe the law would have stopped you from keeping it all’[said Andrew]… ‘the law wont persuade me to do wrong’[stated Sir]” (274-275). Sir’s statement is extremely powerful, instead of a person persuading him to abandon his beliefs it is the government. His moral code comes in direct contrast with the law of the land. This tension also arose when Andrew wanted to become legally free. The attorney argues, “the word ‘freedom’ has no meaning when applied to a robot. Only a human can be free”(276). This conclusion; however, is in opposition to Andrew, Sir, and Little Miss’s beliefs. Andrew is self aware enough to understand what freedom means, Little Miss makes a valiant plea in his defense, “When you talk to him you’ll find he reacts to various abstractions as you and I do, and what else counts? If someone else’s reactions are like your own, what more can you ask for” (276). This is hitting on the morality of giving a robot freedom because the robot is able to feel like a human. Little Miss argues it is immoral to deny Andrew just because he is considered a robot, but the law is opposed to such a statement.

Lawfulness and morality are in tension during the Jim Crow era. In the original Constitution slaves were considered 3/5^ths of a person. The Constitution was not moral because it devalued a person based on their skin color. This is similar to the dehumanization of Andrew because he is a robot. Decades later Plessy v Furgeson supreme court decision allowed for ‘separate but equal’ to be established. It was lawful to force people to use separate bathrooms, go to separate schools, live in separate towns, and many times do hateful things. This separation was often at the expense of the black community, the separation did no establish equal facilities but aided in the oppression of their race for an unnecessarily long time. The laws were in place, but it was not up to the moral standards our country should strive to meet. Looking towards today, there is a large amount of hate going around, often seeping into our legislature. It is important to have people who dissent these laws, acknowledging their immorality and destruction. In Congress there are laws being proposed to allow for police profiling, animal habitat destruction, and a reduction in Planned Parenthood. Such actions should not become the moral compass of our country, rather the laws citizens take down when they realize what is right isn’t necessarily lawful.

This past Tuesday, we were introduced to a scenario having to do with facial recognition via police cameras. The cameras were initially just used to hold those exceeding the speed limit (by at least 5mph) accountable. Upon becoming aware of this, the FBI asked for and received real time access to the system. Their intended use of the system was to identify and arrest members of terrorist organizations.

The primary objective of any nation is to protect the people on their own soil from any potential dangers. Based off this it is easy to conclude that the state police were adhering to utilitarianism. The “utility” of their actions will benefit most of the population. I guess we can assume that the “War on Terror” will have stepped one foot closer towards victory.

After further consideration, I must question if the police made the right choice. The obvious benefit is to those who live on American soil. But what about those Americans who also fall under the stigmatized category of “Muslim” or just possess stereotypical characteristics attributed toward terrorists? When only concerned with traffic violations, the system’s prime objective is to match license plate numbers and pictures to people. Under the use of the FBI, the system will filter through all the amassed data with the goal of locating “potential” terroristic persons.

Computers are useless on their own. They are solely composed of inorganic materials that are then assembled by humans and then powered by electricity. We have yet to perfectly incorporate artificial intelligence into computers. So, my point is that any computer program is an extension of the programmer and there is a probability that it too possesses biases. Regardless of bias, we should also expect a percentage of failure. There will be those who are falsely accused of terroristic crimes and/or affiliations. It wouldn’t be the first time. And yes, I understand that decisions of this magnitude are complex. The judicial system is a perfect example. Would you rather let loose murderous criminals or put someone innocent behind bars? I would not have the answer to that. What I do know is that this system does not have all the information necessary to make just decisions.

The bottom line is that there is a deprivation of freedom in this case. A group of people will be unjustly surveilled and categorized so that the freedoms of another group (the majority) will remain intact. To infringe on the freedoms of any citizen is immoral. It just seems convenient when we get to choose which freedoms to protect and which freedoms to stomp on.

The Bicentennial Man raises the topic of racial discrimination as hints of inequalities were scattered throughout the reading in the form of robotic metaphors. The conversation of freedom eludes to historical enslavement as the robots were forced into submission, which for them was due to their positronic brain wired to obey the Three Laws of Robotics. The freed robot Andrew was even representative of the culture present during the reconstruction period following the civil war– he was labeled “free” but still faced obvious oppression. African Americans granted freedom by the Emancipation Proclamation were still suppressed as most were freed into hostile environments lacking any sort of support. Even upon freedom, Andrew was still ordered to act against his will, African Americans were still deprived of economic and educational opportunities while enduring continuous acts of hate from their inimical peers.

I couldn’t help but project my background of biology upon this theme of discrimination, therefore expanding my ideas of the reading a bit farther beyond racism. Among the humans and the robots there was a defined line between the two– even though they both walked like equals and talked like equals, there was a clear disconnect. Outward appearance can’t solely equate two individuals, which parallels to the scientific disagreement towards the the morphological species concept, which uses differences and similarities in appearance to differentiate one species from another. It is an arbitrary system that doesn’t take into account the many evolution-based causes of similar appearances, such as mimicry. This strategy used by animals to mimic characteristics of other organisms is seen in the robots of the Bicentennial Man as their fundamental design is rooted in its ability to almost seamlessly mimic humans– both in behavior and aesthetics.

Methods like phylogenetic speciation are more commonly accepted– this determines species by looking at whether or not the individuals in question have overlapping evolutionary history or any sort of genetic overlap. The humans in the Bicentennial Man reflect these accepted means of equating species; they see the robots as human-like beings, but know fundamentally they are not the same– they do not share any sort of common ancestor nor any genetic similarities as they don’t even have the same constitution. One is flesh, one is metal. One is man, one is simply not.

In Asimov’s Bicentennial Man the scene that struck me the most was when Andrew was on his way to the library and the two men come up to him. They tell him to take his clothing off because he is a robot and shouldn’t being wearing clothes and want to disassemble Andrew. I immediately connected this scene with slavery and racism. These two men thought that Andrew was below them because he was a robot but fail to recognize that Andrew is a sentient being very similar to themselves. Despite being free Andrew is still forced to listen to the orders of these two men even though it would destroy him. He and his rights are less protected than the two men who attack him on the street. This reminded me of the Jim Crow laws that kept power over former slaves even after they were freed. This story looks at the rights of a sentient being, which in this case is a robot, and the prejudices of a society.

From our point of view the actions of the two men on the street are despicable. We have the privilege of knowing that Andrew thinks and feels the same way humans do. These two men are displaying pretty clearly the fear that is held by society towards robots. They don’t think of robots as intelligent sentient beings because they view robots as a tool to be used for their own gain.

This story will become more and more relevant as our technology in robotics and artificial intelligence becomes more advanced. The laws of robotics will need to be carefully examined and adapt as the technology adapts.

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.