Robots as Artificial Artifacts - Essay Example

Artificial artifacts, like robots of Learning Introduction In the recent past, scientific and industrial revolutions have yielded what man never thought would be in five or six centuries ago, The Robot”, 1 machine that has undergone tremendous advancement to the extent that by the year 2000 Robots started to resemble human beings. The main concern is not that it resembles man in physical appearance, but also the way we walk, talk, think and feel. This has earned them the name Humanoid Robot. A good example of the said above is the Honadas As/Mo, a machine that not only resemble man in its looks, but also enjoy virtual humanoid properties such as behavior, visual interpretation and response to human species and gestures in a human manner. These aspects of robots interaction with humans has made man to start considering robots as companions, rather than tools or appliances. Those who posses these machines do not seem to settle for a simple solution, but rather continue to invent and improve these machines to resemble human beings. The biggest question at this point, probably, is for how long would or should the human race continue to take this? Does it mean that eventually the robots may end up taking the world away from us? Does it mean that every human problem would eventually start getting robotic solution as time goes by? These are very crucial sentiments that must be addressed sooner rather than later (Tillrch, 2006). Impressively is how the founder of the artificial intelligence John McCarthy attempts to respond to the above question. He clearly puts his opinion on the existence of these robots that resemble human beings as a problem waiting to explode (Tillrch, 2006). Mc Cathy argues that those who invent these robots should confine themselves to creating appliances and tools such as vacuum cleaners and cake pans rather than hose keepers in short he argues that the designs of this robots are better of designed to resemble appliances rather than human beings. “We dont want Robots that people would hate or fall in love with or anything like that” He cited this in the Harbons article (Markus, 1991). McCarthys view is considered by scholars as preventive rather than curative. He does not give us ultimate solution to the already created human resembling robots (Markus, 1991). Marvins Minsky, another Artificial intelligence pioneer echoes McCarthys point of view by arguing that in case an individual gets used to order a household robot to do certain things probably he/she may go ahead to command fellow human beings to do such boring, disgusting and unspeakable things that they are used to order the robots to do (Markus, 1991). Therefore, to him, Morality must be instilled in these robots and it must begin with the owners of these machines (Markus, 1991). A close look at many industrial countries and in particular South Korea, then one would be interested to see how the introduction of these human like robots would impact the human race. What concerns us is that we do want to see the introduction of these robots making lives of human beings better and easy; the question is what would be the side effects. For example, the South Korean government is embarking on a mass production of these robots with an aim that by 2020, every household should own one. Today, these robots in South Korea work as tourist guides in museums and English teachers in schools. Therefore, from a personal point of view, moral and professional ethics, which include code of conduct, should be introduced to these machines (Markus, 1991). Following a study carried out by Peter. H. Kahn Jr. in the laboratory, the results is that there is a clear relationship between how we reason and behave in relation to continuous interaction with robots. What is true is that there many robots in the market and they are easily available. The robots can cause a tremendous change in behavior with those who interact with them. Therefore, there should be moral values accompanied with their production and marketing (Eynon & Hills, 1997). A real scenario indicates that robots have greatly sunk into our societies to the extent that people have started to develop emotions towards them. For example, during a televised program, an A1BO was thrown to the garbage. This solicited mixed reactions among those who were watching this particular program. One shouted in disbelief, “I cant believe they have done such as a thing I mean that poor puppy” (Eynon & Hills, 1997). This clearly indicates that robots have acquired a certain status into the human society and with that it means these robots should be developed with moral standings. With the continued development and advancement in robots among the human societies; it remains important that unless these advancements are confined within the boarders of morality; the human species are in a great danger. For instance, today, the robots are being used for military adventures and expeditions. These robots do not have any feelings and can be used to commit massive crimes against humanity and other terrorist activities. In case there is a fault since some of these robots are not one hundred percent fit, a lot of damages and loss can be counted. Thus, there is need for accountability and transparency so that manufacturers of these machines do not put the whole world in danger after our generation (Kahn, 2004). One of the greatest problems that have emerged as a result of lack of moral limits for robots is the fact that robots in televisions, particularly those which resemble human beings can be used to spread social evils such as drug abuse (Yablonsky, 1997). Most audience of these robot programs are the children who are intending to resemble and imitate what they see on the television. For instance, where a robot is smoking cigarette or taking alcohol make the children try the same so as to be as cool as the robots or to do some of the extraordinary things, which done by the robots (Yablonsky, 1997). Therefore, it is personal pleas that since these robots have become semi – role models they should live up to the societal standards, which are expected of a role model (Kahn, 2004). Due to their supposed unbiased reasoning, robots must be guided with morals. This is because in case they are put in positions of leadership they can be used to disrupt the political scene worldwide. As if that is not enough, if robots can think to do things themselves they would end up being both skilled and unskilled labor leaving millions of people jobless worldwide in themselves, robots would always cause a serious quandary therefore morality should be injected to them (Feenberg, 1991). From biblical point of view, there is only one giver of life, God. Therefore, it would be blasphemy for man to attempt creation. It is known how jealous God can become especially during the creation of the tower of Babel when God crushed it down. Religious beliefs may foresee doom; if man attempt to equate him/herself with God by giving life. People never know these robots might be used to be the downfall of human race. Therefore, people must remain cautious and robots must be produced with guided morality (Harbron, 2007). In case robots are adopted into the human society then they should be guided with the very same ethics that guide man and other species have on earth. The main reason for this particular judgment being that since the robots have acquired so much attributes like those of human being, there is no alternative than to ensure that robots also maintain the morals required among human being (Harbron, 2007). Though, we all agree that robots do make life easier to man, we should agree that their very presence created by these robots can be more disastrous than the actual danger, these robots are created to shield man from. Therefore proper moral regulations should be enforced just as instructions are put through to the robot on what they should do, they should be made in such a way that they understand what should not be done (Gops, 1995). Certain people due to their economic status may not be able to acquire the services of robots and therefore may decide to engage in socially unaccepted activities such as crime and sexual immoralities so as to be able to acquire these goods hence undermining the moral status of the society. Therefore the services of these robots should be affordable for even low income earners thus help them not engage in this evils (Feenberg, 1991). Since these robots have a tendency of replacing people at work, many have suffered because their incomes have been greatly reduced hence having a low lifespan. The moral thing to do is always try to incorporate this machine to assist those already working so that they do not loose their jobs. Also important to do is to attempt to structure these robots so that their introduction would help create more jobs (Gops, 1995). Moreover, the existences of robots lead to heavy financial expenditure on the government budget, especially on military robots. This in turn is pushed to the taxpayer who fills the pinch in his or her income. Many people today cannot acquire certain basic needs because of the increased tax by the government to enable them find the expensive robot production (Kahn, 2004). Just when the invention of robots was termed back pin 1920, it was called “Robots” in Czech Republic, a lot at ethical questions started to emerge. These questions have since continued to grow as our dependence on them continuous. The most worrying of them all is what has come to be the common modern popular fiction that at one point machines would take control of the world. In the movie Matrix” it is well castrated therefore moral remains the binding aspect if man is to continue enjoying services of robots (Baumeister & Stillwell, 1994). The ethical question on how we should treat the robots as many robot researchers ask whether it is moral to switch them off at one point? The concern is since when has a machine graduated from a mere device to an entity worthy of moral protection? Therefore, it means that the society fail to consider this as poor treatment of these machines. For example, when a machine version of an animal is misused, what should remain in the minds of many is the significance of moral to both the robots and man? (Tillrch, 2006). Now the question can artifacts such as robots have moral status? The answer is yes, robots have continuously continued to interact with human beings and in some societies they have ended up being part and parcel of their day to day dynamic and cannot be alienated if so then whatever that associates with man should have morality (Baumeister & Stillwell, 1994). Secondly, we can put three cafeterias to judge if at all robots deserve a moral status. First we must think about how human beings act ethically with robots or not since human beings are the ethical agent. The design of the robots whether or not it is ethical lastly is to consider if really the robots can be created to become agents of morality as they interact with humans (Haidt, 2001). The greatest implications on human on the subject matter are that people can be able to learn about morality from these robots. This can also help us to end the blame game that occur whenever there is an accident caused by machines because most of the time, these faults are as a result of human negligence or at times they are the one who create these machines to kill example guns. Therefore moral implication is the core of the interaction between man and machines (Haidt, 2001). In conclusion, ethics and morality are intrinsic within a robot – This is because technology is not an addition to man but is one of the ways in which man disguises himself from animals; so that as humanoid robots are symbolic devices, designed by humanity to increase its capacity it should act with charity and good. References Baumeister, R. F. & Stillwell, A. M. (1994).Psychological Bulletin: A Review of the Experimental Literature. Psychological Bulletin, 84 (1994): 634-660. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Eynon, G. & Hills, N. T. (1997). Journal of Business Ethics. Springer: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Feenberg, A. (1991). Journal of Critical Theory of Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gops, J. (1995). Journal of Towards the Ethical Robot, Android Epistemology. Boston: MIT Press. Haidt, J. (2001). Journal of Psychological Review. 14.1 (2001):151-235. New York, NY: Academic Press. Harbron, P. (2007). Journal of the future of Humanoid Robots. New York, NY: Discover Magazine. International Review: Information Ethics Volume 6, 2006 Kahn, P. (2004). Journal of Social and Moral Relationships with Others. New York, NY: Pearson Longman Publishers. Markus, H. R. (1991). Psychological Review: Psycnet.Apa.Org Review Company. US: The Macmillan Company. Tillrch, P. (2006). Journal of Systematic Theology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Yablonsky, L. (1997). Journal of Robopaths: People as Machines. New York, NY: Vikings Penguin. Read More