Thursday, January 20, 2011

"Programmed for Love"

In the following article from the Chronicle:

http://chronicle.com/article/Programmed-for-Love-The/125922/?sid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en

the author suggests that human to human interaction is being replaced by human to computer interaction.  Social media sites like Facebook offer us the illusion of interaction with other people, while we are actually tied to our technology.  Many people feel compelled to maintain their technological connections - causing my husband to label these items as "electronic pacifiers."

In the article, the author discusses how the ever-present technology often keeps us from focusing on the people around us. We interrupt dinner to check email or answer the phone, we tend our farm cows instead of talking to our families.  However, another threat exists in technological advances.  As technology improves and becomes more "human" - able to mimic facial expressions, tone of voice, etc., there is a risk that people will form an inappropriate emotional attachment to their machines.  In Star Trek, the android Data was able to simulate a relationship and the appropriate responses by pulling segments from movies and videos into his memory and copying them in his interactions.  One author suggests that replacing humans with robots is acceptable - that people in the future may choose to marry robots.  Another warns of the risks of putting machines in roles only human beings should fill.

In thinking about this, I find myself somewhere in the middle.  One feature of robots is that they are not judgmental.  I might be more comfortable confessing my flaws to a robot therapist, knowing that there would be no "what a terrible person you are" running through the back of the therapist's mind in our conversations.  At the same time, I don't believe marriage to a robot would be emotionally sustaining.  I would love a robot cook, housekeeper, laundress, yard worker, but the purpose for me would be to free up time for me and my (very human) husband to do more enjoyable things together.  I have two dogs that love me, but they don't fill my need for love and companionship in the same way that my husband and friends do.  And, I don't think a robot - no matter how sophisticated - can fill that place either.  Regardless of the sophistication of the programming algorithms, I doubt robots will be able to mirror the complexity of true human interaction.  So, keep the robots to the menial tasks, and I'll stick to people when I feel the need to be social.

1 comment:

  1. The most precious part of love is that while to a great extent we can't pick and choose who we CARE about, we can and do, every second of the day, pick and choose who we express love to... a robot wouldn't have that ability to choose, so in the same way people who believe in a personal God that we're made in the image of (versus a distant and emotion-void creator) believe in personal choice as something God equipped us with to create personal connections, by us playing the God role and making robots and other things, ultimately, we still cannot replace the ability for a person to reject us at any moment, and no object, as they would ultimately be programmed however we please (even "rejection" would therefore be loyalty if we programmed it in to argue, fight, or 'feel' betrayed by us, even to betray us), can take the place of the constant effort and choice made by people who in being around us ultimately are affirming something, tangible or intangible, about our worth. A robot can only affirm that we are capable of altering a computer chip. A person affirms our ability to be good, bad, loving, smart, stupid, hateful, priceless, obnoxious, inspiring, or boring... and we need a healthy balance of both. Robots would make for a lot of egomaniacs!

    ReplyDelete