Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Do Androids Dream They Hear Electric Men and Monkeys in the Jungle Scream?
The great Joel Garreau
describes the bonds that form between soldiers and robots on
the battlefield:"Ours was called Sgt. Talon," says Sgt. Michael Maxson of the 737th Ordnance Company (EOD). "We always wanted him as our main robot. Every time he was working, nothing bad ever happened. He always got the job done. He took a couple of detonations in front of his face and didn't stop working. One time, he actually did break down in a mission, and we sent another robot in and it got blown to pieces. It's like he shut down because he knew something bad would happen." The troops promoted the robot to staff sergeant -- a high honor, since that usually means a squad leader. They also awarded it three "purple hearts."
And:
It's common for a soldier to cut out a magazine picture of a woman, tape it to the antenna and name the bot something like "Cheryl," says Paul Varian, a former Army chief warrant officer who has served three tours in Iraq with the Robotic Systems Joint Project Office. "There's an awful lot of picture-taking," he says. One guy who married justbefore deployment wanted his wife to see the gal who was his constant companion. It was a PackBot.
The piece raises a lot of questions about the increasingly blurry lines that separate the human from the machine. As the saying goes, read the whole thing.
thoreau|5.8.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Wait, they're using robots in war?
Don't they realize the danger of making robots that aren't equipped
with the Three Laws?
|5.8.07 @ 12:14PM|#
If we can send one of these robots back in time to kill Osama's mother before she gives birth to Osama, then I'd be impressed.
D.A. Ridgely|5.8.07 @ 12:17PM|#
The piece raises a lot of questions about the increasingly
blurry lines that separate the human from the machine.
In roughly the same way various Twilight Zone episodes do
and prison sex sheds light on homosexuality.
highnumber|5.8.07 @ 12:17PM|#
The headline is making my mind split into like four separate personalities, one of which is a Jew working in a metal shop in Japanese occupied San Francisco, one an early Christian, one a SF writer living in So Cal in the late 70s, and one a teenage Soviet temptress with psychic powers. It's going to be a long day.
|5.8.07 @ 12:18PM|#
When we start sending burkha clad terminators into the terrorist hide outs with phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range, then color me impressed.
Jesse Walker|5.8.07 @ 12:18PM|#
In roughly the same way various Twilight Zone episodes do
and prison sex sheds light on homosexuality.
Well, no. It directly addresses both the way we project human
qualities onto machines and the way our tools become extensions of
ourselves. I think those both fit the bill.
|5.8.07 @ 12:19PM|#
How 'bout the nose art on WWII bombers? Isn't that similar to what is being described in the article?
|5.8.07 @ 12:21PM|#
People bond with shit. This is a fact. People bond with horses, dogs, ships, airplanes, howitzers, rifles, machine guns, hair dryers, etc. It's not fucking science fiction. It's reality. It's happening every day.
D.A. Ridgely|5.8.07 @ 12:23PM|#
Fair enough. But I'd still say the unusual circumstances here make generalizations about such things questionable at best.
Grotius|5.8.07 @ 12:28PM|#
D.A.R.,
There's a ton of scholarly material on the anthropomorphization of
machines.
|5.8.07 @ 12:40PM|#
"We always wanted him as our main robot. Every time he was
working, nothing bad ever happened."
An example of how the human mind reverts to caveman mode when faced
with constant, random, and uncontrollable threats to bodily
safety.
ed|5.8.07 @ 12:43PM|#
If I kill one will the authorities treat it as a homicide, just like they do with police dogs? That always bothers me. A lot. Not that I have anything against dogs. Except the little nervous, shivering ones. They freak me out.
|5.8.07 @ 12:45PM|#
The opening section of the article reminded me of a great story
by Terrel Miedaner called "The Soul of the Mark III Beast."
In it, a scientist proclaims that biological kinship has little to
do with a "respect for life" but rather the fact that another
animal resists death.
The scientist goes on to demonstrate by having a woman play with a
small robot only to direct her to later smash it with a hammer. She
does so until the machine lets out a wail and a whimper that
prevents her from going on.
It brings to mind the bigger factor...that these machines are seen
as aids in (or more accurately fellow participants in) resisting
death. Consider 'Wilson' from the movie Castaway.
Anthropomorphising is a common and possibly admirable and necessary
trait in human beings.
Despite D.A.s irritation, perceived shared experience with
machinery, pets or good luck charms is a powerful factor in human
existence. It's what causes some of us to name cars, weapons, tools
and other such things.
|5.8.07 @ 12:52PM|#
An example of how the human mind reverts to caveman mode
when faced with constant, random, and uncontrollable threats to
bodily safety.
Even amongst more or less identically constructed machines, there
are some that will undoubtedly perform better than others.
Complicated devices are subject to all sorts of impacts in creation
and construction, human and otherwise. What causes one car to come
off a line running awesome while another comes off a lemon?
The same may be the case here. The soldiers notice that this one
bot seems to outperform the others. It seems to do exactly what it
was designed to do and - and this is most important - it has
survived longer than the others.
I don't think I'd accuse them of irrational caveman responses out
of hand. I think there's a much more complicated calculus going on
there that's driven both by observation and reason as much as
mysticism and irrationality.
D.A. Ridgely|5.8.07 @ 1:00PM|#
Grotius:
Sounds like too much academic heavy lifting for me. Look, I
understand tools become metaphorically and sometimes not so
metaphorically, e.g., my eyeglasses, extensions of one's persona.
Yeah, I named a car I once owned, too. I also understand how, by
extension, robots on the battlefield may become the objects of some
of the same sort of bonding that K-9s have before. (Hey, I remember
Rin Tin Tin!)
But when we start taking comments from some soldier calling a
PackBot "the gal who was his constant companion" as at least
implied evidence of the "blurry lines that separate the human from
the machine," I say such evidence (assuming it wasn't, as is more
likely, a joke in the first place) doesn't go very far to support
such a claim and needs to be put into the context of young men
separated from women in general and friends and family in
particular and put in a dangerous and stressful situation where
human emotions and behavior are more likely to be atypical than
not.
D.A. Ridgely|5.8.07 @ 1:16PM|#
Yeah, yeah... and "My rifle robot is human, even as
I, because it is my life," too.
Grotius|5.8.07 @ 1:20PM|#
D.A.R.,
When my computer malfunctioned the other day - or rather, the
router - I treated it as if it were a willful act. That seems to be
a common enough thing in human-machine relations.
|5.8.07 @ 1:21PM|#
An example of how the human mind reverts to caveman mode
when faced with constant, random, and uncontrollable threats to
bodily safety.
Most of the people I encounter operate at caveman mode even without
any threats to their bodily safety.
Exhibit A: everyone likes to have the same seat every day in the
lunchroom, and gets visibly upset if someone takes "their"
seat.
Exhibit B: the primate level subordination behavior whenever the
CEO enters the room - the submission grimacing, the "smaller" body
postures, you name it.
|5.8.07 @ 1:22PM|#
highnumber,
Come on, get off your High Castle.
It's common for a soldier to cut out a magazine picture of a woman, tape it to the antenna and name the bot something like "Cheryl," says Paul Varian, a former Army chief warrant officer who has served three tours in Iraq with the Robotic Systems Joint Project Office. "There's an awful lot of picture-taking," he says. One guy who married justbefore deployment wanted his wife to see the gal who was his constant companion. It was a PackBot.
Fembots as camp followers. Can they be far off?
As for the future of our military, we all know that it will be at
least 50% robotic, with the difference made up in genetically
enhanced monkeys. It's self evident.
|5.8.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Grotius
When my computer malfunctions, I assume it is a personal act of
malicious mischief arranged by Bill Gates himself to torment me.
;P
highnumber|5.8.07 @ 1:37PM|#
ProGLib,
I can't get off my High Castle, because the Grasshopper Lies
Heavy.
|5.8.07 @ 1:41PM|#
P.Libertate
. . . and don't forget our terrorist fighting cybernetically
enhanced dolphins. Check out here
and here.
|5.8.07 @ 1:42PM|#
highnumber,
My I Ching reading indicates that you are actually living in an
implausible reality.
thoreau|5.8.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Fembots as camp followers. Can they be far off?
Yeah, but Austin Powers will work his mojo and cause them to melt
down.
|5.8.07 @ 1:43PM|#
Matthew,
You're right, of course. I meant the Army, USMC, and the Air Force.
Not the Navy.
Yes, the Air Force. Haven't you heard of Flying Monkeys?
highnumber|5.8.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Hang on, ProGLib, some crazy sexy broad is killing a Nazi assassin for me.
|5.8.07 @ 1:55PM|#
L Ron Hoover's First Church of Appliantology needs to open a
branch on the battlefield.
http://home.online.no/~corneliu/extreme02.html
L. Ron Hoover:
Well, you have nothing
to fear, my son!
You are a Latent
Appliance Fetishist,
It appears to me!
Joe:
That all seems very,
very strange
I never craved
a toaster
Or a color T.V.
|5.8.07 @ 2:02PM|#
Cmdr. Libertate,
"flying monkeys"
. . . uhmm, not outside of that scary scene in the Wizard of Oz.
You mean they're real ?!
|5.8.07 @ 2:04PM|#
Matthew,
Remember, The Wizard of Oz was filmed in the 1930s, long
before digital effects were available.
|5.8.07 @ 2:29PM|#
We'll know the future has arrived when we have robots that wave their corrugated arms around ineffectually and say, "Danger! Danger!" in a deep voice until some guy wearing a V-neck sweater over his turtle-neck yells, "Shut UP, you mechanical ninny!"
|5.8.07 @ 2:35PM|#
Stevo Darkly
Actually, we'll know that we've created a computer that thinks like
a human when one of them consults a horoscope before starting work
in the morning. [I think that's a Ray Bradbury observation, but it
could have been Ted Sturgeon.]
highnumber|5.8.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Um, guys, the future will never arrive.
In other news, you're older than you've ever been.
And now you're even older.
And now you're older still.
Brian Sorgatz|5.8.07 @ 2:38PM|#
We'll know the future has arrived when we have robots that
wave their corrugated arms around ineffectually and say, "Danger!
Danger!" in a deep voice until some guy wearing a V-neck sweater
over his turtle-neck yells, "Shut UP, you mechanical
ninny!"
But if the Iraqi insurgents raise a clone army to fight our droid
army, then the Sufi
Knights need to start looking over their shoulders, I guess.
thoreau|5.8.07 @ 2:40PM|#
But if the Iraqi insurgents raise a clone army to fight our
droid army...
There's nothing to fear. Our leader Darth Sidious has all sorts of
connections in the Senate, and he'll make sure that we're
protected.
Brian Sorgatz|5.8.07 @ 2:45PM|#
thoreau,
But by my analogy, Sidious is the leader of both sides. Think about
that one.
thoreau|5.8.07 @ 2:45PM|#
But by my analogy, Sidious is the leader of both sides.
Think about that one.
I think about that all the time, Brian, and not just jokingly.
SugarFree|5.8.07 @ 2:49PM|#
One guy who married just before deployment wanted his wife
to see the gal who was his constant companion. It was a
PackBot.
That is so hot.
Think he was angling for a threesome?
|5.8.07 @ 2:50PM|#
There's nothing to fear. Our leader Darth Sidious has all
sorts of connections in the Senate, and he'll make sure that we're
protected.
Waaait... when did the Pope become involved with this?
Brian Sorgatz|5.8.07 @ 2:52PM|#
From what little I've read from him in his unimpressive
Playboy articles, Sam Harris seems to think of the
patriarch of monotheism, Abraham, as the world's Palpatine. But I'm
skeptical. Mystics keep talking about the unity of all things, and
it makes sense to me. The one capital-G God, as opposed to the
numerous small-g gods, is minimally a personification of this
unity. Is that fair as far as it goes?
Anyway, that's my last brain fart.
Brian Sorgatz|5.8.07 @ 3:05PM|#
God has a hard on for Marines...and their robots.
So, if we managed to win-or even save face-in Iraq, President Bush
could steal this speech from Peter Griffin of Family Guy:
"I want to thank God. I want to thank the Lord God because It is
really not up to me, it is up to him and I want to thank the devil
too because you know that is why God is there. He is minding the
fence to make sure that guy never comes back. You know if it
weren't for the devil God had probably gone insane blowing his
brains out from boredom. Everybody likes to feel useful. Make a da
world go around. Back to you Tom."
dhex|5.8.07 @ 3:22PM|#
mr. sorgatz, you have to keep in mind that sam harris is not a sharp tack so much as a persistent one, a la o'reilly.
|5.8.07 @ 4:06PM|#
I've never had an urge to finger bang Mary Jane Robo Crotch through her pretty pink panties, myself.
|5.8.07 @ 4:17PM|#
do women name their vibrators?
I knew one who did.
She named it "BOB".
Short for Battery Operated Boyfriend.
|5.8.07 @ 5:26PM|#
How 'bout the nose art on WWII bombers? Isn't that similar to what is being described in the article?
I'm reminded of an old cartoon, possibly WW2 vintage. It depicted a
GI in front of his wrecked jeep, pointing his pistol at the front
of the engine while he looked away with a grief-stricken
expression, as if he were putting down a horse.
People can bond with and anthropomorphisize things that are
obviously implements (as far back as we have writing, we find
people naming their swords); make the things in any way
independent, like a vehicle or robot, and that becomes an even
harder impulse to resist. We'll see more of this as robots become
more capable of doing things our instincts classify as
"lifelike".
I find myself wondering whether that means, by the time when (and
if) it's possible to produce computers and robots that have
human-scale intelligence, that people won't have too much trouble
treating such entities as "living", thinking creatures or
people.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245