Imagine training robots to fight humans; using AI to help the robots learn and refine the skills needed to defeat the strongest, fastest, smartest, craftiest, bravest human fighters.
Imagine a form of beta testing designed around the idea of “entertainment,” with ticket sales helping to fund the R&D.
I know. I know. You’re thinking, “Yeah, it’s called Sci-Fi, and I’ve seen most of the movies,” and sure we are advanced enough to use our critical thinking skills, and we know that reasonably minded people know that’s one of the stupidest ideas.
Many of us remember Sarah Connor’s warnings. Heck, even the Terminator had the sense to know something was wrong, and later came back to fix things— to prevent our annihilation.
But, there’s always a but…
I love sci-fi. I am intrigued by engineering, technology, and science. I love when they can come together in harmony.
But in the stories of past, there’s always a sci-fi geek that takes the geeking too far in their quest to make fiction a truth, their childhood fantasy an adult reality.
We can’t count on cyborg assassins from the future to come here and warn us. Even if they did, we can’t count on folks paying attention and doing anything about it. If anything, with all of the government secrets (and off-the-books agency activities) for the past 80 years, there would probably be a slush fund to fast track the revolution.
Hmmm… that might be more of a reality than a hunch, the more I think about it. Not conspiracy theory, just an understanding that humanity has done some outrageously stupid things century after century to speed up our mass destruction.
It’s like playing Russian Roulette with a planetary reset button.
Are there not some things that we don’t pause and say, “Nope. That’s a big no-no,” and we collectively steer clear of?
Are there not moments of inspiration where we don’t say, “How can bad actors take this idea to cause great harm?” and then we vow to steer clear of producing that which can cause harm?
What happens when we intentionally teach machines how to identify, pursue, and defeat human opponents? The question isn’t simply what the technology can do—it’s whether we are adequately considering the risks, consequences, and boundaries before building it.
Alfred Nobel invented and saw the benefits of dynamite and ballistite, but also later saw the devastation of use when applied towards war and other acts of violence. But, only when faced with how his legacy was negatively memorialized in a newspaper’s obituary (he was mistaken for his brother who had passed) did he truly realize that future generations would be taught he was a creator of death, and he threw a Hail Mary pass called the Nobel Prize.
With great power and intellect comes greater responsibility and accountability. Yes, we can create. We can feed our ego, to a certain extent. But we can also be brave enough, wise enough, scared enough, to say no to the temptation to play the Ultimate Creator.
The God complex is intoxicating. It’s also a trap.
No one has the energy and grace to listen to and accept the apology tour in 25+ years, when robots are unleashed on humanity, and they use their internal AI languages to override human commands. By then, the concept of “cancel culture” will be camera crews zoomed in on the smoking embers of former industrial complexes.
Some ideas should stay in the books and movies, with admiration for the writers who tried to educate and warn through genuine entertainment.
Harry Bates, Ray Bradbury, John Brunner, James Cameron, Aldous Huxley, Fritz Lang, Edmond North, George Orwell, Ridley Scott, Mary Shelley, and others, wrote stories of warning that were packaged for greater palatability as entertainment.
Why take the ideas that foretell destruction and place a wager that you can achieve a different outcome? Why the obsession with trying to be God?
I’m interested in your thoughts and opinions.
~Natasha
