Author: John Reagle

During class when we watched the tv show, “Humans”, I thought the potential technology that was exhibited was extraordinary and greatly futuristic. However, later on that day, I was on YouTube and came across a video of a human-like robot. It drew my attention and I continued to watch videos of the robot and its abilities. Surprisingly, the abilities and looks of the robot were not far from the capabilities of the robots in “humans”. The robot, while not as real looking, looked like a life size barbie doll. The lips moved when it spoke, there were teeth, and the computer it was connected too was able to hold a conversation.  The engineers said that a goal of theirs was to have the robot have a conscious close to that of humans. The importance of this, they exclaimed, was to have them be able to function and in turn aid in our lives as close as possible to us.

As seen through the precariousness of the Anita in “Humans”, a conscious robot is not something that the human race might not necessarily want. When they become as smart as humans and develop feelings as ours, their role in our lives can begin to cause more harm than help. They can rationalize actions as good, when they can really be disadvantageous to what is trying to be accomplished. Hopefully, this complication will not be developed.

Similarly, if self driving cars develop this type of intelligence, the result can be just as harmful. With the absence of human rationality and holistic understanding, the “right” ethical decision by the car can be disadvantageous to the intentions of the driver. For example, in a situation of an accident, the car could decide to kill one person, who is close to the driver, instead of two people who the driver doesn’t know. While this is a dilemma that has no right answer, I would expect for the driver to be more satisfied if the person close to the driver was saved. In “Human” Anita acts similarly when she takes the daughter because she thinks its for the greater good when it is actually for the worst. Its these of issues surrounding the consciousness of robots and computers that worries me. There is simply no being that can make decisions at the level of the human mind.

In class, I found the similarities between the Barbado’s Slave Code and the rules that robots are to live by strikingly similar. When thinking about the rules that a robot lives by, it doesn’t seem out of place because they are not inherently human, but when these same rules are applied on individuals because of their race, it is un-doubtfully grotesque and awful. The robot laws were seen, in my eyes, as a way to shed focus on the atrocities of slavery.

The rules outlined in the Barbado’s Slave Code definitively reduces Negroes as inferior to Christians. In the slave code, it asserted that the purpose of the slaves is to serve the white Christian man and that any act against a white Christian would be cause for serious punishment. Horrifically, robots are purported to exist by similar structures as well. The difference is, however, while robots are man made and vividly lack human traits and attributes, people were marginalized into the same category as them. The robot laws contextualized the terror that slaves were made to endure by visibly connecting the two circumstances to show the injustice to that of slavery. Comparing the two in this way outlines the inhumane society that slaves lived in with the irrational robot society in the future.

On a personal note, the readings on a robots role in society and the Barbado’s Slave code led me to delve into self reflection of what my understanding of slavery had really been. I have always denounced it and understood how horrific it was, but it was only when I saw it side -by-side comparison with similar non-human treatment that its true implications were made aware to me. The contrast and want for the robots to be seen as human beings which we saw in various readings must have been the same sentiment that  real humans felt during the slavery era.

The ethics in The Bicentennial Man and the ethics regarding self driving cars, although different in nature are inherently similar in their conflictions. In both conundrums the ethical dilemma revolves around the different valuations of life and which should be given a greater value in the event of an imminent death.

One of the big debates with the advent of self driving cars is the situational intricacies and how the car will respond. In the event of imminent death what will the artificial intelligence of the car decide and how does that value the life of one person over the life of another. For example, if the car has the decision to charge into a group of people, saving the lives of the people inside, or charging into a wall saving the group of people, but killing the passengers in the car which is the better option. Both are relatively terrible options, but the rational conscious of a person is able to decide the best relative decision while a computer must decide based on a strict set of predetermined rules. The computational capabilities of even computers with forms of artificial intelligence it is a nearly impossible and trivial matter to decide on because a group of people will always be disadvantaged by its decision.

Similarly, in The Bicentennial Man the consciousness of a “robot” is compared and contrasted to that of a human. In class the theoretical ethical dilemma that my group wrote about was if a robot is about to kill a human, should the bystander kill the robot to save the life of a human or should it not do anything because the robot has consciousness as well. Here is the consciousness of the robot worth more than a human, or vice-versa, or is that even a decision we can make?

In the dilemma present, it is not the humans decision to determine whether the consciousness of a robot is worth more than that of a human. As in the issues surrounding self driving cars, it is an inherent issue to determine who is valued more in any given moment or society. This is definitely an issue that we will embark on more and more as artificial intelligence gets more advanced.

I thought it was intriguing in the reading and in class when we explored the reasoning behind Hank Morgans secrecy of certain technologies he was trying to implement. These technologies included the telegraph, newspapers, and schools. Although, initially it might seem like a strange concept for why he wanted to conceal these advancements; it eventually became evident that it was to avoid backlash from the church and shock from the citizens. It isn’t far from how our society operates in todays world. There is a countless amount of intelligence, advancement, and secrecy that is withheld by governments from us in todays world.

It is my impression, that as citizens of the United States, we know roughly 25% of what is actually happening in our country. Even the information that is perceived as known is likely doctored or not entirely true. For example, the whole reasoning for going to war against Iraq is still uncertain. The government told us that it was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction although it has been, for the most part, confirmed false. Other instances where citizens are left in the dark include UFO encounters, area 51, which is sticktly confidential. Unauthorized and explained payments to foreign governments, and black sites where the CIA collects evidence.  Just as in Hank Morgan’s thought process, it is for the greater good that citizens are left in the dark for certain developments. In most circumstances regular citizens are not equipped to understand the full scheme or purpose of advanced knowledge or technologies. Also, it may leave it in the hands of people that could use it for the wrong purposes.

While initially I was shocked by the notion of Hank Morgan hiding certain advancements, it increasingly became evident to me how hypocritical it is for me to think so. In our society advancement is masked just as much if not more than in the Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court. 

In the Documentary, ” The White City”, I was intrigued with the size and depth of information and exhibits that the World Fair held. However, not only was I struck with amazement of the amount of innovative exhibits they portrayed, but also the innovation that went into creating the fair.

Countries, states, and companies all show-cased the most impressive innovations that they had. In an effort to show who was the most powerful, both militarily and industrial, leading up to the fair innovation was at the forefront of importance.  States produced as much as whatever their agricultural prowess allowed them to, Krupp, a German company, created the largest artillery weapon of all time. It was capable of launching a 1 ton piece of artillery over 15 miles. The United States alternatively produced a similar artillery weapon that could launch artillery over 13 miles. The fair became, essentially, a contest on who could outdo each other and prove they were the best.

Building the White City was a feat in itself and required innovation in order for it to be completed in the short timespan . Among the innovations was the creation of spray paint, to more effectively paint the vast structures and buildings. Other innovations were the plaster substitute which looked like marble, but is actually a much cheaper alternative, and the method of pile driving the buildings on poles into the swamp for support.

The fair provided vast improvements for the 20th century, not only through its exhibits, but also its construction. This spur in innovation helped propel industry and adversely could have caused possible friction through arms races that possibly could have caused World War 1.