In Practice
There are two kinds of artificial intelligences common within science fiction and realistically possible: those which are roughly human-sized and mobile (robots) and those which are larger, more sedentary, and less human-like (computers). Both have their good and bad points. Robots would have a structure more nearly emulating our own, and therefore would have perceptions of the world more nearly emulating our own, and therefore would probably be considerably easier and cheaper to build. On the other hand, by creating human-like robots we would essentially be creating competitors. The only practical use for metallic humans is probably to perform either rote tasks or tasks too dangerous for ordinary humans; in either case self-consciousness would be not an asset but a liability. Sooner or later we would be likely to work ourselves into a master/slave relationship, with all its moral and ethical complexities, and I am not entirely certain who would be which. The average person quite naturally finds Asimov's robots, with their programmed Three Laws of Robotics ("One, a robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.... Two... a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.... And three, a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws")(22) less believable than Rudy Rucker's rebellious, and sometimes murderous, boppers(23).A computer would be more difficult, very likely impossible, for us to build, but more likely for us to coexist peacefully with. Note that I am not talking in any way of a "mind-in-a-box" or a disembodied computer, but rather a computer with a very large body, like the computers abundant in science fiction whose "bodies" are houses, cities, spaceships, or in rare cases(24) entire planets. Such beings would clearly perceive the world in a massively different way than we would; they would be immobile or nearly immobile; they would have multiple sites of perception which they would have to integrate into one central consciousness, a process of assimilation which would be considerably different than our own.
There are dozens more options for artificial intelligences - space, for example, provides a plethora - but until we can build one such options are entertaining but ultimately useless speculation. And it will remain useless speculation until we are able to let go of many of our conceptions of what artificial intelligence should be. We are not building Frankenstein. We are not creating flawed copies of ourselves; we are not drawing mind-maps which can be traced line for line onto a "silicon brain." There are perfectly simple (and very nice) ways of creating more people. But if we do not wish to be alone in the universe, then we should turn our thoughts to creating, not an imperfect copy, but a new kind of mind.
previous page
footnotes and citations
Contents copyright © K. Feete, 2002. All rights reserved.