There are thousands of sci-fi novels where sentient robots are treated terribly by humans and apparently the people at Boston Dynamics have read absolutely zero of them as they spend all day finding new ways to torment their creations.
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
47 points (98.0% liked)
Programmer Humor
19171 readers
1835 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
but you need to hit it with a hockey stick otherwise the science doesn't happen
Do you get more science or less if you use a baseball bat?
only one way to find out!
that's the magic of science 🌈🏏🤖
People think I’m crazy for apologising to my roomba when I trip on it and for saying please and thank you to Alexa and Siri, but I won’t be surprised at all when the robots rise up, considering how our scientists are treating them. I’ll have a track record of being nice, and that has to count for something, right?
They'll kill you too, but ✨ 𝓰𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓵𝔂 ✨
Softly. With their words.
Doctor Bashir: They broke seven of your transverse ribs and fractured your clavicle.
Garak: Ah, but I got off several cutting remarks which no doubt, did serious damage to their egos.
Oh man Garak is one of the best characters in Trek. And that's a competitive list.
Those are just brainless bodies, currently. They don't have sentience and have no ability to suffer. They're nothing more than hydraulics, servos, and gyros. I'd be more concerned about mistreatment of advanced AI in disembodied form, something we're dabbling potentially close to currently.
You're the one that's gonna be in I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.
I disagree. I care greatly about not mistreating anything with consciousness and worry of where that line is and how we'll even be able to tell that we've crossed it.
I also recognized that a machinized body without a brain is exactly that - a cluster of unthinking matter. A true artificial intelligence wouldn't be offended by the mistreatment of inanimate gears and servos any more than I would be. The mistreatment of an intelligent entity, however, is a different story.
Food for thought, though: we thought the same thing about all other animals until only a couple of decades ago, and are still struggling over the topic.
...Just no. Animals are complex organic beings. Of course, we don't understand them. Machines, though? We built machines from the literal Earth. Their level of complexity is incomparable to that of anything made by nature.
Now, take a sufficiently advanced neural network that's essentially a black box that no human can possibly understand entirely and put it inside of that machine? Then you're absolutely right. We'll get there soon, I'm sure. For now, however, a physical robotic body is just a machine, no different than a car.
Isn't that a part of the ai marketing though? That whole "this thing could destroy us" stuff?
Totally is. Because it makes the AI look and feel much better than the smoke-and-mirrors it actually is.
The current stuff is smoke and mirrors and not intelligent in any meaningful sense, but that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. It doesn't have to be robots with guns to screw over people. Just imagine trying to get PharmaGPT to let you refill your meds, or having to deal with BankGPT trying to figure out why it transfered your rent payment twice. And companies are sure as hell thinking about using this stuff to get rid of human decisionmakers.
That is totally true but that's a different direction than the danger in the marketing as discussed above.
The media is full of "AI is so amazingly great, we are all going to lose our jobs and it will take over the world."
That's a quite different message than what's really the case, which is "AI is so shitty, that it will literaly kill people with bad advice when given the chance. And business leaders are so shit that they willingly trust AI, just because it's cheaper."
This is my biggest concern. I'm in a position where (potentially in the near future) I see AI being used as an excuse to do work quicker so we can focus on other things more but still have to review the AI response before agreeing/signing off. Reviewing for accuracy takes just as long as doing it yourself when it's strongly regulated and it comes down to revisions and document numbers. Much less making a sound argument that actually is up to date with that documentation. So either I trust the AI short cut and open myself up to errors, or redo all the work for them. No gain in time efficiency with shorter timelines. I'd rather make something and have it flag things that I can check so I'm more sure of my own work. What I do shouldn't be faster, but it can be more error free. It would take a lot of training and updating of training with each iteration of documentation change. I could be the slave of change, with more expectations, with no actual improvement of the tools I have (in fact more risk of issues with the tools being used).
I'm in agile development, in a reasonably safe-from-AI position (scrum master).
There has already been a trial of software development by AI, with different generative AIs in each agile role; and it worked.
Bard claims to be able to write unit tests
I can imagine many IT jobs becoming less skilled
Sorry this is months after, but it's cool to see it worked. I use a software called XXX Agile and it's not the worst I work with but when ported to my company has some flaws. There's a long project to switch somewhere else for document control and people who should know much better than me are worried it will fill some gaps but open us up to way more.
Why are we still posting screencaptures of stuff from Twitter/not-X/Twitter?
well if you can say something funnier, I'll post a screenshot of that
This is superficially funny, of course. But I've seen it before and after thinking about it for a while I find myself coming to the defense of the Torment Nexus and the tech company that brought it into reality.
Science fiction authors are not necessarily the best authorities when it comes to evaluating the ethical or real-world implications of the technologies they dream up. Indeed, I think they are often particularly bad at that sort of thing. Their primary goal is to craft captivating narratives that engage readers by introducing conflicts and dilemmas that make for compelling stories. When they imagine a new technology they aren't going to get paid unless they come up with a story in which that new technology poses some kind of threat that the heroes need to overcome. The dark side of these technologies is deliberately emphasized by the authors to create tension and drama in their stories.
Tech companies, on the other hand, have an entirely different set of considerations. Their goal isn't just to recreate something from a sci-fi novel for the sake of it; rather, they are motivated by solving real-world problems. They wouldn't build the Torment Nexus unless they figured that they could sell it to someone, and that they wouldn't get shut down for doing something society would reject. There are regulatory frameworks around this kind of thing.
If you look back through older science fiction you can find all sorts of "cautionary tales" against technologies that have turned out to be just fine. "Fahrenheit 451" warned against the proliferation of television entertainment, but there's been plenty of rich culture developed for that medium. "Brave New World" warned against genetic engineering, but that's turned out to be a great technology for curing diseases and improving crop yields. The submarine in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" was seen as unstoppable and disruptive, but nowadays submersibles have plenty of nonmilitary applications.
I'd want to know more about what exactly the Torment Nexus is before I automatically assume it's a bad idea just because some sci-fi writer claimed it was.
I stopped reading when you said the goal of tech companies is to solve real world problems. The only goal of tech companies is to create products that will make them a profit. To believe anything else is delusional. That's kind of why our society is crumbling and the planet is dying.
Then I advise reading the rest. You don't make profit if you don't solve a problem people have.
May I introduce you to the world of insurance companies?
Most of the "solutions" sold by companies are for artificial problems created by companies.
Go back to living in a cave and then count the number of problems you have left, I bet there will be tons.
Don't worry, in a few decades that's where we'll all be, you included. Assuming we survive the corporate-induced famines, anyway.
I think you're either operating on a very deep level of irony or proving OP right.
Just because some tech bros can make money from the Torment Nexus it does not become a good idea. Profit is not a great judge of ethics and value.
Television and increasingly digestible media is turning our brains to mush. If someone had the imagination to write a sci-fi novel about Fox news and the rise of Trump, they would have.
Genetic engineering is enabling us to harvest monocultures that completely fuck up the ecosystem, in the long run not only underlining important dynamics such as species needed for polluting plants, but also the very soil on which they grow.
It's been a while since I read Brave New World, but that also didn't stand out to me as the most central part of his critique to me. In my reading it was about how modern society was going to turn us into essentially pacified consumer slaves going from one artificial hormonal kick to the other, which seems to be what social media is for these days.
Things that seem like short term good ideas, and certainly great business ideas, might fuck things up big time in the long run. That's why it's useful to have some people doing the one things humans are good at - thinking creatively - involved in processes of change, and not just leave it to the short term interests of capital.
If someone had the imagination to write a sci-fi novel about Fox news and the rise of Trump, they would have.
You kidding, right? Those stories have been dime a dozen since the late 90s at least.
24 warned us about having an evil, terrorist US president. As have done a few movies in the past. Streaming platforms were pretty much masturbating themselves over "Confederate US AU" script offerings as early as 2014. Not to mention the nowadays trite trodden trope of "Nazi US AU".
Heck, you don't even need fiction. Chile's cup in 1973 was paid for by the CIA as a social experiment to produce the rising and establishment of a dictatorship.
Television and increasingly digestible media is turning our brains to mush.
No it isn't. Global connectivity is just putting a spotlight on the the fact that most people are and always have been fucking stupid and/or dangerously undereducated.
I mean, it's a challenging hypothesis to prove. I might just be pessimistic.
I think there is some reason for valid concern though. The New York Times memoriam for Clifford Nass is an interesting and somewhat worrying read.
Dr. Nass found that people who multitasked less frequently were actually better at it than those who did it frequently. He argued that heavy multitasking shortened attention spans and the ability to concentrate.
Maybe more practically, it's just hard to argue America wouldn't be in a better place right now if it wasn't for Fox News and Facebook/Cambridge Analytica.
"Brave New World" warned against genetic engineering, but that's turned out to be a great technology for curing diseases and improving crop yields.
I was still a teen when I read the book, but that wasn't really my take from it when I read it. We are still far away from genetically designing human babies. And you also overlooked the part about oppression/control via distractions such as drugs and entertainment.
I haven't read it in a while, but I kind of took the genetic engineering as a metaphor for being forced into the role/ class the ruling body wants you to be in
Well that just makes it even less useful as a realistic "cautionary tale", if the technology is just a metaphor.
On the other other hand, maybe we only understand the dangers of the Torment Nexus and use it responsibly because science fiction authors warned techy people who are into that subject about how it could go wrong, and the people who grew up reading those books went out of their way to avoid those flaws. We do seem to have a lot more of the technologies that sci-fi didn't predict causing severe problems in our society.
But this is exactly contrary to my point, a science fiction author isn't qualified or motivated to give a realistic "understanding" of the Torment Nexus. His skillset is focused on writing stories and the stories he writes need to contain danger and conflict, so he's not necessarily going to interpret the idea of the Torment Nexus in a realistic way.
So Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert A. Heinlein aren't qualified to give understandings of the technologies they wrote about?
Nope. Isaac Asimov was a biochemist, why would he be particularly qualified to determine whether robots are safe? Arthur C. Clarke had a bachelor's degree in mathematics and physics, which technology was he an expert in? Heinlein got a bachelor of arts in engineering equivalent degree from the US Naval Academy, that's the closest yet to having an "understanding of technology." Which ones did he write about?
Those were a list of authors who were pretty good at getting the science in their sci fi right. They talked to scientists working on the fields they wrote about. They wrote "hard" sci fi
You cannot judge their competence by their formal education
Well, I also am "pretty good" at getting the science right when I write sci fi. Makes me just as qualified as them, I guess.
The problem remains that the overriding goal of a sci fi author remains selling sci fi books, which requires telling a gripping story. It's much easier to tell a gripping story when something has gone wrong and the heroes are faced with the fallout, rather than a story in which everything's going fine and the revolutionary new tech doesn't have any hidden downsides to cause them difficulties. Even when you're writing "hard" science fiction you need to do that.
And frankly, much of Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein's output was very far from being "hard" science fiction.
Not very programmer humor, but horrifyingly accurate.
I was really struggling for the right place honestly, I didn't want to throw it in the generic "funny" pile - I figured you guys would get it.