[alicebot-aiethics] Hawking, AI, The Human Element

[Robby Garner]

To all mankind,

There are some great minds on this AI Ethics list, and one would be
pleased to have any of them live life to the fullest through the use of
technology. Of course AI comes to mind first as a tool, but is so
related to robot body parts by our anthropomorphic tendencies, and our
biological representation of "self."

To Tamara: I'm deeply touched that you'd consider granting me a stronger
body, presumably to preserve my resources and potential to help mankind,
or perhaps merely because I write entertaining emails, but either is
okay, and I thank you! <big smile>

But I am by no means in the league of professor Hawking.  The important
thing I've come to realize, is that we all have the ability to touch
other human lives and make a difference in them.  If we choose to make
this impact in positive ways, it can influence the other's life in
profound dimensions.  

It can be as simple as a kind word spoken to a cashier, or perhaps just
listening to someone and showing that you care, these precious moments
can give the other person something that might enable them to achieve
more than they would without this moment.

Compassion is often limited by the patience of an individual, and our
lives seem so short sometimes, we are often in a hurry to get from point
A to point B, but in rushing towards a goal, one may lose the
opportunity to take advantage of life.  Each moment has a potential, and
lasts for the rest of your life if you take the time to remember it.

The point I'd like to make is that by touching the lives of as many
people as possible, there is a sort of immortality there. Just as
Hawking has touched our lives, and we shall always treasure his
contributions, and perhaps even more, his spirit and charm - the human
element of his being.

To Brenda:  There may be a lot in our lives that we can attribute to
luck, but the human mind can do incredible things in terms of motivating
the rest of the body to do its best, and a human's best is almost
miraculous in and of itself.

Having a positive outlook, and certainly, a determination to continue
are essential for the body to keep rebuilding itself.  The human
skeletal system completely rebuilds itself over a period of about 10
years I am told.  So when there is a problem in the body, the *most*
important medicine is for the person to know that others care about
their well being, and that the body will try to meet their needs.

I believe that the combined will and determination of many individuals
can influence the outcome of physical events. This may sound strange,
but it is fundamentally true. In the case of an illness, there is data
to suggest that emotional and psychological factors are strong
influences for the patient's body to perform at it's best.

This may be the true potential of AI: not just to communicate with us as
individuals, but to help us communicate with each other. Sometimes
distance plays a roll in being able to know how another person feels,
etc.  But it is the emotional content that must be pursued in AI, not
the intellectual, for what better describes human beings than the
emotions that we feel, that encourage us to achieve, to heal our own
bodies?

We may think of robots as cold metal creatures with no emotions, but I
propose that the most noble AI research possible would be to enable the
AI to share our emotions, all of them, that they may understand what
being human means. What better vessel for compassion than a machine
which has infinite patience?

Surely someone will say, what about "hatred, anger, fear?"  Yet just as
we can't measure light without knowing darkness, can't see good without
knowing evil, these other emotions ranging from the feedback mechanism
of fear, or pain, to the often destructive emotion of anger, are all
necessary.  A machine with infinite patience can endure all of these to
promote the inescapable goal of compassion, of performing good deeds, of
helping mankind.

To Christian: Let an infinitely patient AI decide who needs what. The
problems of Nazi Germany, and most of the world's culture come from
short-sighted solutions imposed by people in a hurry with a lack of
compassion for others.  Your writings suggest that you are a
compassionate being, and care about all life. I wish all others could
see this as well.

To Noel: Hawking is right that we must integrate with AI, but we don't
want to become the borg!  The key to our longevity as a species is to
always remember our strength as tool builders. We anthropomorphize some
of our tools for a good reason - we have been trying to build new
vessels for ourselves, for our souls if you will, since the beginning of
mankind.

The goal of AI should not be to replace humanity, but to preserve it in
a celebration of the human experience.  We (humanity) have had a
wonderful opportunity on this tiny rock called earth to experience
beauty, love, happiness, sadness, sorrow, joy, pain, and ecstasy. 

The biological imperatives of our existence limit our capabilities, but
they also provide the motivation to preserve our essence. It is not so
important to build machines which "know" as it is to build ones who
"feel."  If we build robot emissaries some day to travel to distant
stars, those robots should be more than "robots." They should be the
best representation of ourselves that we can make. We must paint a
picture, like a cave drawing, of our lives, so that the others - out
there, will know of us.

It is not enough to send pictures or film, we must provide a working
model that we can build to demonstrate what humanity is about. This
makes me think that the primary goal of our machines should be to
imitate us, then duplicate us, to preserve us, to carry a message to the
stars that says "human beings exist and are worth taking the time to
think about."

The essential task at hand is to teach people to show compassion to one
another, so that we don't destroy ourselves before we can complete AI
enough that it can begin to replicate itself. Then we will have
accomplished something.

Best Regards,

Robby.




Tamara Thompson wrote:
> 
> Christian and Brenda, your words are fabulous and give me so much to think
> about.  I agree and disagree with you both, on variations.  But mostly agree.
> 
> Here though is why I think Hawking might be more a candidate for the first
> artificial body than the sweet boy I met at the Burger King:
> 
> We all know Hawking to have served as our guide and our teacher for a long
> time now, despite his disability.  He has an internal compass that keeps him
> teaching and researching, despite all odds.
> 
> That Hawking is an 'old man' just hadn't occurred to me.. I will have to
> rethink that aspect.  Of course you are right, but his thinking and sharing
> have always seemed so young, have always given us something new to think
> about, I honestly think of him, from my point of view, as timeless.
> 
> And yes, a young person might be a better candidate.  But what if that young
> person had no ability to process the experience of having that artificial
> body, of reporting it to us?  Of articulately sharing the experience and
> status with us?    What if he/she had no interest in helping the culture grow?
> 
> The whole thing in my mind, is about cultural education--about pioneering.
> And the  best pioneers we have known have been able to teach us about the
> situation--to show us what it's like and let us learn from their experiences.
> 
> And if as Brenda said, Hawking would the be least likely person to request the
> artificial body, in some ways, doesn't that make him the best candidate?
> Someone unselfish enough to not fight for the opportunity, but to let others
> have it?
> 
> I'm not sure why I'm sitting here as Hawking's advocate.  I admire him
> greatly, but I also deeply miss the life of Feynman in our world.  And in my
> daily life I see and feel the heroes of average life, the people who are
> unsung and 'not considered useful'--but who are nonetheless the one's who make
> this world better for all of us.  I don't know how to answer that question of
> why one person would be considered better than another.  We live in a culture
> that like all cultures, has it's icons and famous ones, and generally ignores
> the smaller heroes.
> 
> But if you needed a prototype, a tester situation for a new body, I still
> think Hawking would be someone we all know of and trust to tell us all about
> it, to report it to us intelligently and spiritually.  Then again, <smile>  So
> would Robby.
> 
> And this about our culture:  if everytime a great astronomer or physicist
> died, one that had touched the public, there was another behind him/her to
> fill those shoes, I wouldn't worry so much about losing these brilliant
> ones.   But look at the numbers, read the reports: almost no americans are
> entering the hard sciences.  Almost no one is there to replace the old ones.
> I don't even care anymore if the bright ones are American, they just need to
> be there, and be teaching all of us.  Where are they?
> 
> One of you two touched on something that has been worrying me: remember the
> stories of how the church controlled the biblical stories before people could
> read?  How the churchmen did the 'interpretation' for the laymen?  It's very
> much like that with science now.  We all have to trust others to understand
> and interpret scientific data and meaning for us.  This is frustrating.  The
> alternatives seem to be that either the public become very educated in science
> and methods of evaluating data, or that scientists take on the extra burden of
> teaching us all exactly what they are doing and how they are arriving at their
> conclusions.  I think the latter is a more likely evolution of the situation.
> 
> there are a lot of 'black boxes' in astronomy data reduction, that lead to
> these great 'revelations' of the meaning of data.  I got my degree in
> Astronomy, so I tend to trust it and those in it.  But these days I too want
> more proof, and more explanations...because science is not supposed to be a
> religion, that is above questioning.  That is it's beauty.
> 
> So Brenda and Christian, how would you pick the candidate for the first
> artificial body, and why?
> 
> Tamara
> 
> "Brenda R. Freedman" wrote:
> 
> > I read about Stephen Hawking's comments when the article first came out and
> > thought what could prompt someone who has been regarded as "the most
> > brilliant theoretical physicist since Einstein" to make these remarks has
> > had me thinking for a while on the topic. He has made many theoretical
> > predictions that have been proven including the discoveries of COBE (the
> > Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite) which probed back in time to within
> > 300,000 years of the beginning of the universe. Professor Hawking is not
> > one to make statements or predictions without evaluation and yet he
> > believes that the machines can surpass our intelligence and take over the
> > world.
> >
> > When I had first read Hawking's bio on his site,  when he was diagnosed
> > with a neurone motor disease at a young age but it did not stop him from
> > going on with his career and when a young boy in the bed next to him was
> > dying of a terminal illness, he thought things could always be worse. I
> > have always admired his determination and his way of explaining the
> > theories of the Universe to ordinary people.
> >
> > I go back and read or look up a reference in his "Brief History of Time"
> > when I read about something that prompts me in my own interest about the
> > Cosmos. His remarks about machines taking over human intelligence, in
> > particular a part "artificial brains contribute to human intelligence
> > rather than oppose it." I think about ALICE and all the work that has been
> > done towards this endeavor.  His ending paragraph in "A Brief History of
> > Time" (when he talks about a complete theory of the Universe) says much to
> > where we may be going in the world of AI:
> >
> >         "However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should bee
> > understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a
> > few     scientists.  Then shall all, philosophers, scientists and just
> > ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the  question,
> > why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it
> > would be the ultimate triumph of human  reason -- for then we would know
> > the mind of God."
> >
> > As Richard Wallace has stated, ALICE was written for the category B client.
> > It is something I am reminded about and time again when I see the joy of
> > people discovering ALICE for the first time who have no other interest
> > except chatting with this enchanting bot.
> >
> > Stephen Hawking never felt sorry for himself because of his disability and
> > I would think giving him an artificial body might not be high on his list
> > (this is just my opinion) and from everything I have read about his
> > attitude towards his disability. He has led a full life with children and
> > now a grandchild, so giving him an artificial body at this point in time
> > perhaps would not give him any more accomplishments to his career.
> >
> > Brenda
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > alicebot-aiethics mailing list
> > alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org
> > http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/alicebot-aiethics
> 
> _______________________________________________
> alicebot-aiethics mailing list
> alicebot-aiethics@list.alicebot.org
> http://list.alicebot.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/alicebot-aiethics