Robots vs. humans : The endgame

      It is nowadays fashionable to discuss that developments in artificial intelligence would eventually create a world where humankind is either annihilated or enslaved by the robots. As I have discussed before, science fiction authors have recently tilted towards plots featuring a post-apocalyptical world, where science is portrayed as a malignant force than a benign one as imagined by earlier writers. I attempt to examine the issue from the ground up. My conclusion may or may not be correct, but I hope the framework is scientific and objective.

     Proponents of the theory that robots would eventually be antagonistic to humans largely believe that the robots will be 'created in our image', and will therefore have similar motivations. Humans tend to be driven by greed, love, fear, and a range of emotions. Our desire to be powerful, to rule over others, and in extreme cases, use violence to establish our supremacy, largely stems from those emotions. To explain what causes those emotions is tricky territory. We can, however, say with reasonable certainty that as a species, the primary purpose of mankind is the survival and replication of its DNA. Many of our emotions are designed around that end-goal. 

     At a level that is easier for us to relate with, the purpose is maximising our long-term happiness. That is, to maximise the total happiness that we expect to accrue over our lifetime. While people have distinct personalities (one man's food is another man's poison), most "sources of happiness" are common across individuals. A warm hearth or words of praise would be desired by most. It is for this reason that human behaviour is somewhat predictable. Economists expect people to act in their best interests, and Generals anticipate soldiers to put up a defence when under attack by a raiding party.

     What would robots be driven by? Consider an algorithm for a turn-based game that a robot plays against a human. A computer cannot distinguish between a win and a loss unless we reduce the principles to mathematical terms. At each stage, the robot evaluates the possible steps and chooses the most rewarding branch in the decision tree. It would aim to maximise or minimise the score by taking the path that leads to the best-case scenario. Depending on the computational power, the computer will evaluate the available combinations, factoring in the human responses (like in chess) in each case, and play the winning move - the one that leads to the best score. What endgame are the robots likely to have in mind?

     Unfortunately, this is where things get murkier. The algorithms and the training data that drive the robots would be shaped by the philosophy of the people who design them. Robots are slaves of their algorithms (see pic). 

    A robot whose algorithm seeks to maximise the number of human lives saved might shoot down a perfectly compliant car driver to save a group of students crossing the road when the signal is red. A robot programmed to value diversity may act favourably towards a Latin American female than a white Caucasian male, even in a scenario where the action is unfair. In that sense, the motivations behind the acts of the robots would ultimately be framed by humans. Except for a scenario where you envisage a mad scientist who deliberately designs a robot whose aim is to annihilate humanity, the undesirable consequences of artificial intelligence are likely to be awkward, embarrassing surprises, akin to errors thrown by buggy code. Another possibility is that well-designed robots start behaving unpredictably just because the algorithms are not dynamic enough to change with the times. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

     I cannot think of a scenario where robots start acting in self-interest. I tend to believe that Asimov's three laws of robotics would define all robot behaviour, precluding them from ending up as a powerful despot. Theoretically, machine learning enables robots to reprogram themselves, yet as long as they operate under the overarching three laws, I would not consider global domination by machines a plausible scenario. Unless, of course, human coders commit a blunder and circumvent the three laws.

 

     Nonetheless, we can expect robots to commit embarrassing mistakes in the interim, like a machine-driven car colliding head-on with a lamppost, or a medical algorithm making a disastrous diagnosis. Over time, we would have robots that imperceptibly mimic human behaviour (and therefore pass the Turing Test), but without our shortcomings. They might end up being powerful slaves of the few technology giants who have designed them, implementing their ideologies with an iron hand, and amplifying them over the globe. Yet, I believe robots will forever remain subservient to a human or a group of them, and never be the masters of humankind. A Skynet kind of software might cause a nuclear Armageddon, but not by design, purely by accident - a silly coding error or a garbled message. 

On the fall of Empires

       Many theories have been propounded regarding the fall of the Roman Empire, arguably one of the most influential empires the world has ever seen. While the reasons differ from one historian to another, the invasions by the nomadic tribes that eventually led to the sacking of Rome in 410 AD by the Visigoth king Alaric is considered a critical juncture by most. The Empire suffered a deathblow by 476 AD when the Germanic leader Odoacer staged a revolt to depose the Emperor Romulus Augustulus.

       It is interesting to examine what pushed the Germanic tribes to encroach the boundaries of the Empire. The migration was largely caused by the invasion of the Huns in northern Europe, a fierce group of warriors who have been reported to consume raw meat, which they heated by placing it between their thighs. The deformed skulls of the Huns resulting from artificial cranial deformation made them look even more ferocious. Ferocious enough to drive even the Goths towards the boundaries of the Roman Empire. But what drove the Huns to northern Europe? It is believed that between 338 and 337 AD, intense drought conditions prevailed in the Steppes. A drought that lasted nearly forty years and was among the worst in 2000 years. The drought made life on the steppe exceptionally harsh, leading to intense competition for resources, with some tribes forced to look outside the Steppes. Thus, eventually, it was an indirect impact of climate change that brought the Roman Empire to its knees. 

       Centuries later, the Islamic Empire suffered a similar fate when the failure of Nile floods in 969 AD caused widespread suffering and spurred a revolution in North Africa, bringing the Fatimids to power, who as Shia Muslims had a very different view about the legacy of Muhammad. The revolution created two separate power centres, one controlled by the Fatimids in North Africa, and the other by the Abbasids in Baghdad. The rifts created in the Muslim world effectively reduced the grasp of Muslims in Central Asia. The period was fruitful for the Byzantines though, who were able to take back lucrative territories, the taxes from which helped usher in a golden era of architecture and arts in Constantinople. 

       The world during this time was heavily dependent on agriculture, hence the impact of climate change was severe enough to topple powerful empires. We might not experience something as dramatic in today's world, although it would be too early to rule out such a possibility. A large part of the population in Asia is still dependent on agriculture, and even a powerful nation such as China is vulnerable to food security concerns. That said, given the long timelines, how will the impact of climate change play out in the latter half of the century is anybody's guess.