Friday, January 23, 2009

Mary Shelley's Worst Nightmare

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The products of technological advance are, themselves, neutral. What we do with rocks, sharp sticks or nukes, however, is a moral issue. The emergence of 'artificial intelligence' carries implications for warfare --'automated nukes' and 'robotized warfare'. The word 'Frankenstein' has come to mean 'monsters of our own creation', monsters beyond our control.

Until Isaac Asimov's seminal "I, Robot", most robotic oriented sci-fi could be summed up in a sentence: Robots were created and destroyed their creator.

Some Sci-fi authors imagined an advanced race taming both its own destructive impulses as well as those of its robots. The fifties classic, The Day the Earth Stood Still, is premised upon the use of robotic power to impose peace. [See: Sci-Noir: The Day the Earth Stood Still (Again!)]

Asimov attempted to 'create' a 'noble' robot that could not harm a human being. Thus was born in his 1942 short story "Runaround", Asimov's 'Three Laws of Robotics'
  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
The very word 'Frankenstein' has come to mean 'monsters of our own creation' but more generally, monsters beyond our control. 'Frankenstein' has come to symbolize the Faustian bargain made by man with his own technology. The '50's Sci-Fi classic, Forbidden Planet, echoed Shakespeare's The Tempest which, likewise, dealt with the same theme. [See: Monsters From the ID]

The film, Rowing with the Wind, is set near Geneva, Switzerland in the summer of 1816. It was then that Lord Byron challenged Percy Shelley, Mary Shelley, and her stepsister Claire to write the ultimate horror story. Mary Shelley's response to the challenge made literary history: Frankenstein.
It was a brilliant piece of work for someone so young. But it came out of a hotbed of post-industrial-revolution intellectuals, steeped in a rising concern over what science and industrialization were doing to the world.

Her young protagonist, Victor Frankenstein, tells us early on that

My reluctant steps led me to M. Krempe, professor of natural philosophy, an uncouth man, but deeply imbued in the secrets of his science.
And under Krempe's instruction, Frankenstein's Faustian quest for knowledge takes him to the terrifying secret of life. His product, the monster, is more articulate, more intelligent, and more able to feel pain than his human maker. The monster produced by Frankenstein's intelligence and creative drive had Frankenstein's intelligence and sensibilities, but in a kind of grotesque parody.

--Dr. John Lienhard, Frankenstein
In Rowing with the Wind, Mary Shelley fears that the 'monster' of her fertile imagination has become, in a sense, real as she witnesses a series of tragedies befalling the people around her.

The 'monster' of this film is not the one of her famous story --Frankenstein. The 'monster' of this film is seen throughout but never actively causing deaths. It is the vehicle with which the film explores the four disparate personalities, their intellects, their eccentricities, their fears and passions, their 'monsters from the Id'.

The film takes place near Geneva, where Byron had made his challenge, where Mary Shelley birthed her 'monster'. The photography is scenic and colorful; the costumes recall the era; the dialogue is witty and of the period.

Unless there is a dramatic and universal change of attitudes, mankind will fall victim to its own robotic weapons of mass destruction. Already, sophisticated 'robots' have been built and tested. A 'second generation' will make Robocop look antique. Future generations may utilize exotic or nuclear power. They may fly, see through buildings, target victims with a panoply of high-tech detection technologies not dreamed of today. This is truly 'Frankenstein' beyond Mary Shelley's worst nightmares.
Until he learns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man. I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal because he will endure: that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking.

I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.

--William Faulkner, Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech, 1950


6 comments:

dougdrenkow said...

Wow. That reminds me that I've been saying that history will record the invention and dissemination of the Internet as the most democratizing force in history ... for better (as in the unprecedented amount of small-donor support for Obama) and for worse (as in the widely spread rumors that Obama was a Muslim or the Anti-Christ).

With a background in science, I don't buy into the premise that all of our inventions will eventually backfire. I understand so much of the Industrial Revolution caused inhuman conditions for workers and I understand that the atomic and nuclear weaponry we built upon the basis of fundamental scientific inquiries may yet be the death of us all, but I also see vaccines and household appliances (including toilets) and other inventions helping us everyday (Third World people envy what we take for granted). And again, the most important thing we can gain is knowledge, which indeed is power, so the Internet is overall a big plus in my book.

I hope I'm right.

Unknown said...

dougdrenkow said...

With a background in science, I don't buy into the premise that all of our inventions will eventually backfire.

I believe that the products of technological advance are, themselves, neutral. What we do with rocks, sharp sticks or nukes, however, is a moral issue. The emergence of 'artificial intelligence' complicates the issue. Indeed, Dr. Leinhard believes that a computer, specifically the one that defeated Chess Champ Kasparov, has already passed the famous Turing test of 'machine intelligence'.

As long as 'man's' primary moral decision was how best to control himself, it was easy enough to isolate the problem. Just as I would support world wide nuclear disarmament, I support intelligent restraints on 'weaponized robotics'.

the most important thing we can gain is knowledge, which indeed is power, so the Internet is overall a big plus in my book.

So far --the internet has been a real plus. Bush would have gotten away with much, much more if the 'net' had not blown the whistle. Certainly --the MSM is still anemic in its coverage. I believe it was the net --not 'beauty killed the beast'.

cc'd said...

my 2¢:

¢1 - war is either a disagreement, or agenda pushed forward - and yes, exactly a moral issue

¢2 - with a background in science - I've seen technologies rushed to market without providing a life cycle analysis. Technologies were and are implemented blindly, and until we realized our mistakes, that's when we stopped employing them (lead paint, bisphenyl-A, margarita umbrellas with the toothpicks sticking out)

Nukes will always exist if we can't morally agree that we won't invade each other. Maybe the British are still coming?

Anonymous said...

dougdrenkow, I find your arguments interesting but flawed. There's an old idea in chess that strategy will beat tactics every time, that underlying structures persist and are nearly always determinative of the final outcome. I strongly suspect that the same mechanisms apply in social settings. Yes, it's great to have technology and the incredible developments we have had in science. Moon landings and microwaves are wonderful and I applaud all that science has put before us. But socially it's a different story. Half the world lives on less than a dollar a day and over a million children under 5 die every year of starvation and preventable disease. This in a world of Japanese robot toys that reflect your moods and musical toilets! Somewhere in all of this we have lost the perspective. There is no sense of coming to grips with the Malthusian problem. Kissinger's "useless eaters" are with us, just out of sight. Yet their hopes and pains are the same as all of us. Somehow I'd like to think we could forgo some of the glitzy extras of our Western consumption and give hope to a few more African kids. I'm not sure what the numbers are but I remember reading somewhere that it was only a few billion dollars to get clean drinking water to everyone in Africa and a similarly small amount to get basic medical care. I just can't see the merit anymore in some stinking fucking Star Wars program or trillions spent on Iraq profiteers while kids go hungry. I am more than convinced as I grow older that the greatest crime of this species of omnipresent and unbelievably over rated monkeys is the excess of confidence they place in their reasoning abilities and judgment. Very few people use their minds to challenge their egos and preconceptions, few test the very ground they stand on. That's why no-one understands it when Socrates declared that he "knew nothing." Most fools take this as a pious expression of humility rather than the existential statement of truthfulness that it is, a clear minded intellect that has challenged everything and concluded truthfully that an ocean of wonder and unknowns stands before us against which no intellect can stand. People like this are rare. They know that "coming empty handed and going empty handed" is a terrifying yet liberating existentialist truthfulness forced on anyone who follows ideas deeply. There is no choice but humility for those who think clearly. Unfortunately, we have half wits amongst us, people who would deny much needed contraceptives to AIDs ridden poor countries, arseholes who think their "God given" role in life is to tell other people what to do with their genitals. Perhaps we should insist that all our Congresses and Parliaments are made up exclusively of women. At least it would shut those murderous fucking males up for a while! Let's hope, anyway, that some of the brown people survive our hubris and congenital stupidity. The world could do with a hell of a lot more common sense and plain kindness. Kill the war mongers, murder the arms merchants, then we might just have peace.

Unknown said...

Doug, Damien, cc....wow!

Now --that's what I call a SOCRATIC dialogue.

Great stuff folk.

kelley b. said...

Just an aside here, but have you ever noticed how all the killer cyborgs like the one in your pic always have perfect teeth?

Also, it's interesting to me how the warlords just love to pick up on this stuff. It's like they look to dark sci-fi to tell them how to be the heavies. Just look at DARPA's Future Combat Systems robotics emphasis, for example. It's like they used The Terminator flicks or Philip K. Dick novels as a cookbook.

I view it as a hallmark of the lack of imagination among the really evil.

For example, what have they really named the AI system that controls all the global surveillance satellites? Skynet

That's so demented, you couldn't possibly make it up.