[Mb-hair] Re: NYTimes.com Article: We, Robots

[Joseph L. Tioga]

It was good to hear of the original author's take on robots and what
might go "wrong" with them -- that only what could go wrong would be
because of human error, human character, causing us to reflect on the
quality of our own.  Claude Hooper Bukowski would appreciate this Sci-Fi
conversation.  He used to sing, "... I fashion my future on films in
space."

--Tioga Joe

====================

> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:24:03 -0400 (EDT)
> From: michael at intrafi.com
>
> The article below from NYTimes.com 
> has been sent to you by michael at intrafi.com.
>
> We, Robots
> 
> July 18, 2004
> 
> Now that "I, Robot," a technophobic thriller starring Will
> Smith, has hit movie screens nationwide, it's worth
> remembering Isaac Asimov's accomplishment in the book of
> the same name, which was first published in 1950. True, the
> humans in Asimov's book seem more than a little robotic,
> despite their snappy, Batman-like dialogue. ("Holy space!")
> Donovan and Powell - the robot-testers - resemble Cub
> Scouts in adult bodies. And as for Susan Calvin, the rather
> dried-up robopsychologist, well, it's simplest to say that
> she bears as much resemblance to her screen counterpart,
> played by Bridget Moynahan, as Asimov's robot stories do to
> this movie. 
> 
> As machines, Asimov's robots are not very important. Asimov
> invests almost nothing in imagining how they look. What
> makes them interesting isn't sentience or consciousness or
> a human appearance. It's the fact that the machines embody
> three hierarchical laws that require robots to protect
> humans from harm, to obey humans and, a distant third, to
> protect themselves. Each of the stories in "I, Robot" works
> out a problem in the application of these laws, usually
> caused by an unforeseen implication or contradiction.
> Asimov's robots are perfectly logical, and therefore all
> the real problems are caused by humans, who are shockingly
> unaware of the way their intentions and emotions run
> counter to logic. What look like manufacturing flaws in the
> robots nearly always turn out to be faults in the way a
> command was articulated. Humans, it turns out, are mainly
> good at bossing other humans around. Our computers remind
> us of this every day. 
> 
> There may be nothing subtle about Asimov's prose. But there
> is a great deal of subtlety in the strangely narcissistic
> relationship he creates between humans and robots. The very
> existence of robots leads, in Asimov, to immediate
> questions about human nature - not as it's expressed in the
> robots themselves but as it's expressed in their
> relationship with humans. After all, those three ironclad
> laws create a framework for decency that - as Susan Calvin
> might say - few people ever display. It's no wonder
> Hollywood prefers simply to fear robots, as it does in "The
> Terminator," "The Matrix" and now "I, Robot," to name only
> a few examples. It's vastly easier and more thrilling than
> introspection. 
> 
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/opinion/18SUN2.html?ex=1091175043&ei=1&
en=468e6cf4f58d8e52


________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!