On another website a person I was corresponding with made the following statement: "A society of robots with identical perfectly liberal programming could logically have zero conflict." We hear a lot these days about the next or final generation of robots that will challenge human beings for control in society because these robots will not be plagued by the intellectual imperfections and emotional foibles that handicap human beings in their quest for a perfectly satisfying future. The idea that a "society of robots" could have "zero conflict" is intriguing and seductive but ultimately absurd.
A society of robots is a contradiction in terms. It assumes robots
cannot think for themselves and cannot pursue ends at odds with the ends
of their programmer. A thousand robots "with identical perfectly
liberal programming" is no different than a yard filled with a thousand
identical cars fresh off the assembly line, all designed and built by
the same individual. There would be "zero conflict" among the cars in this new car parking lot because conflict results from contradictory human action. Where there is no human action there can be no conflict.
Introduce two human programmers and now you've got the potential for
conflict, not emanating from the two distinct groups of identical robots
but from the different ends the two programmers have likely pursued.
If the two programmers act on their own as totally separate and
independent human beings, without cooperation or coordination one with
the other, and the means available to attain their common end are scarce
or their chosen ends are not exactly the same, there will likely be
conflict.
Now, if the two programmers decide to cooperate, if they agree upon a
chosen end and if they agree to act in concert to attain that chosen
end, there will likely be no conflict, even if the means available to
them are scarce and even if their cooperative action involves more than
two programmers.
How would the two programmers coordinate their actions? They would have
to agree to modify their behavior in such a way that their actions with
regard to the scarce means used to attain their end would not be
perceived by either as threatening. They would also have to forswear
behavior which might deprive either of the benefits each hopes to
individually realize once their cooperative end has been attained.
One way to modify their interpersonal behaviors to suit their needs
would be to agree to refrain from any acts of murder and theft, one
toward the other.
Could "culture" throw a monkey wrench into the plans of our two programmers? If the two programmers
belonged to cultures that were philosophically opposed, if one
programmer came from a trader culture, say Capt. Kirk, and the other
programmer came from a warrior culture, say a Klingon for instance,
would cooperation between the two or among the many be impossible and
conflict inevitable?
No comments:
Post a Comment