According to an opinion piece in a Sunday NY Times, some of the news reports that we've been reading have been written by artificial intelligence. The article presented two passages and asked if the reader could identify which had been written by a machine. I correctly guessed the first passage, as its style was better (my regard for the writing style of newspaper columnists is not especially high). This realization that I've occasionally paid attention to news composed by a robot gave me pause ... and no little concern. I see the writing on the wall (no pun) and don't like it.
If the field of robotics is allowed to continue to accelerate, then humans will become second-class citizens under the benevolent guidance of robots. Think "Planet of the Apes" - but with robots instead of apes. They will be smarter, faster, stronger, and more resistant to demise than us and will develop external defenses for self preservation - of course all for our own good.
Let's consider how this could play out with some examples. The best known case of humans being displaced by machines is probably the auto industry. I have no doubt that the introduction of industrial robots has improved not only efficiency but also the bottom line. The 1% have gotten richer while many of the 99% have become unemployed or underemployed.
A pending example: autonomous cars. We will recline in back seats and be safely driven around town or on a trip. No need for chauffeurs, taxi drivers, or bus drivers. No need for driver training. No need for traffic police — unless they be robots. Recently I read that we will start seeing these cars before the end of 2015.
Speculative example: your annual prostate exam performed by a robot (maybe wearing a white coat). Not something to look forward to — for either us or our internists.
Or when drones deliver your mail, your dog won't have a postman to bark at. A recent article in a Sunday Boston Globe describes how Amazon is now testing robots to identify and retrieve products from shelves, to replace humans. Why do we need this?
Now don't get me wrong. Advances in machine technology can do a lot of good. Gene-based personalized medicine, front-line combat, fighting fires, exploring the far reaches of outer space, defusing bombs. Activities that few of us would want to do.
Several writers have called for regulation of robotics by a federal agency, but the emphasis up to now has been on liability — developing a legal framework to assess responsibility for damage and loss. But this is too narrow a perspective. The threat to society is much more pervasive, with the imminent loss of 7 of the 10 most common jobs. The regulations must consider, not only issues of liability and responsibility, but also issues of individual human benefit and risk. Robots should not be deployed for efficiency if this will displace human workers.
With respect to auto manufacture, industrial robots would be removed from the assembly line, with human workers taking their place. Although the rate of car production would decline, employment would markedly increase. If done in stages, the increased wages and purchasing power could maintain GDP despite the decline in efficiency.
Stop R & D on autonomous cars. Do we really need them? Or want them? They seem to be the brain child of Silicon Valley. It's a case of "look what we can do."
Drones will probably be the first test case. They are the new kid on the block and already commercially available. Developed for warfare to save the lives of our soldiers, drones are now being touted for all sorts of civilian use because of their comparatively cheap cost. I think that they have a justifiable role in government and business surveillance, as they can obtain visuals not generally available to pilots. But not for delivering mail or packages. That activity is already filled by able-bodied employees.
I propose that regulations overseeing robotic deployment be enacted by Congress and the President. And that a commission be appointed to adjudicate on a case by case basis which robotic activities will and will not be allowed according to whether they will adversely affect employment or pose an unnecessary health risk.
Since Congress is generally known for its inertia and reacting to, instead of anticipating, crises, its consideration of such legislation must be preceded by a groundswell of support from the public. I, therefore, further propose the formation of a People First coalition of social scientists, educators, community groups, labor, and others to advocate for such legislation.
