Random Thoughts About Androids

[Cathbad]

My android will need to be cute and adorable.

 

[Onyx]

android = "male"
gynoid = "female"

(my 2 pence)

I think an argument could be made that the term "android" or "androides" as it was coined in the 13th century is using the "andro" to mean "man" in the sense of human, and that tagging female form androids with the term gynoid might be something of etymological revisionism since maybe what St. Magnus should have said was "anthropoid". Somewhat similar to the way we tend to use the word "sentience" when we're really talking about "sapience".

So I think "android" is a reasonable term for male, female or androgynous human form robots. Gynoid would be a good word in a story where the characters have a slightly prurient mindset about androids, rather than gender assignment coming from more respectable rationales - like personality or to match human gender distribution.

 

[Toby Frost]

Personally, I'd assume "android" to include both genders, like "mankind" or a lot of job titles.

A quick random point about Blade Runner: unlike other androids, I think the replicants literally are slaves, in the sense of being people forced to work rather than machines. They are superhuman, but the only machine-like moment I can recall is Pris thrashing around when shot, which I assumed to be a malfunction like Ash spinning about when hit in Alien. (Roy pushing a piece of metal into his hand to slow himself dying might count, but I think it's largely there for the crucifixion imagery.) Otherwise, they appear to be altered humans.

The replicants also seem to feel emotions that it would make no sense to have a machine emulate. Roy Batty specifically says that slavery is living in fear. So when K is insulted in the sequel, I think he is genuinely concerned. If he was an actual machine, he probably wouldn't care what people said unless his functionality was impaired.

 

[Onyx]

Personally, I'd assume "android" to include both genders, like "mankind" or a lot of job titles.

A quick random point about Blade Runner: unlike other androids, I think the replicants literally are slaves, in the sense of being people forced to work rather than machines. They are superhuman, but the only machine-like moment I can recall is Pris thrashing around when shot, which I assumed to be a malfunction like Ash spinning about when hit in Alien. (Roy pushing a piece of metal into his hand to slow himself dying might count, but I think it's largely there for the crucifixion imagery.) Otherwise, they appear to be altered humans.

The replicants also seem to feel emotions that it would make no sense to have a machine emulate. Roy Batty specifically says that slavery is living in fear. So when K is insulted in the sequel, I think he is genuinely concerned. If he was an actual machine, he probably wouldn't care what people said unless his functionality was impaired.

Where is the line between a machine that is self aware and a biologic entity that is? Replicants are biologically engineered organisms, but ones that have programming and appear to be assembled out of parts rather than gestated. If their cells were formed of metal following the instructions of a DNA analog, would they be less alive?

Would a sapient robot that is all mechanical be any less of a slave if it is aware that word describes its condition?

 

[Toby Frost]

I got the impression that they were grown to order in the plastic sacks we see in BR2049. Are they programmed rather than grown to spec and then trained in their work? I know that sounds like splitting hairs, but it does beg the question why they're not programmed never to rebel. To be honest, I think the original novel is pretty vague on the details.

Would a sapient robot that is all mechanical be any less of a slave if it is aware that word describes its condition?

I'm not sure that a sapient robot would recognise that "slave" did describe its condition. I would define "slavery" as the ownership or captivity of people who are forced to obey. The element of coercion isn't there if the robot is just obeying its programming (I suppose this is why some robot stories begin with the robot malfunctioning somehow and becoming aware of its plight). Solo gets close to talking about this at points, but never quite takes the plunge.

 

[-K2-]

I'm not sure that a sapient robot would recognize that "slave" did describe its condition. I would define "slavery" as the ownership or captivity of people who are forced to obey. The element of coercion isn't there if the robot is just obeying its programming (I suppose this is why some robot stories begin with the robot malfunctioning somehow and becoming aware of its plight). Solo gets close to talking about this at points, but never quite takes the plunge.

More so I would suggest, that it would define slavery as a condition of 'people/humans,' of which it has been programmed to know that it is not. Therefor, it cannot be a slave.

K2

 

[Onyx]

More so I would suggest, that it would define slavery as a condition of 'people/humans,' of which it has been programmed to know that it is not. Therefor, it cannot be a slave.

K2

Roy Batty calls himself a slave. Roy Batty was programmed and is not "human" in a number of ways. It is the simplest thing in the world to say that someone isn't fully human and deserving of rights by pointing at some tiny distinction - like skin tone.

It's just hair splitting when you define what a being of free will is by what sort of womb it came out of, whether it was programmed by it's internal instructions (genes) or by observation (learning).

The whole point of Bladerunner was that man made organic machines had grown in sophistication until they were nearly impossible to tell apart from people. The amount of intelligence required to make these androids truly useful is such that they eventually learn to not think of themselves as devices but people. And humans treat them mostly like people, much like slave owners used to treat their property.

 

[Onyx]

I got the impression that they were grown to order in the plastic sacks we see in BR2049.

Or that's like the plastic you peel off your electronics when you take them out of the box.

 

[-K2-]

Roy Batty calls himself a slave. Roy Batty was programmed and is not "human" in a number of ways. It is the simplest thing in the world to say that someone isn't fully human and deserving of rights by pointing at some tiny distinction - like skin tone.

It's just hair splitting when you define what a being of free will is by what sort of womb it came out of, whether it was programmed by it's internal instructions (genes) or by observation (learning).

The whole point of Bladerunner was that man made organic machines had grown in sophistication until they were nearly impossible to tell apart from people. The amount of intelligence required to make these androids truly useful is such that they eventually learn to not think of themselves as devices but people. And humans treat them mostly like people, much like slave owners used to treat their property.

Yes, I understand... that was a movie. One where rebellion was critical to the plot.

That said, there are others who have written other ideas such as 'the three laws' and so on. So, if we're speaking of "programming" here, then it is up to the programmer to design whatever little mindset she wishes.

As an example:
1A.: All Replicants aspire to be one thing above all, a slave.
1B.: Only humans are able to be slaves.
1C.: Alas, not being human, I am content with being a toaster.

K2

 

[Onyx]

Yes, I understand... that was a movie. One where rebellion was critical to the plot.

That said, there are others who have written other ideas such as 'the three laws' and so on. So, if we're speaking of "programming" here, then it is up to the programmer to design whatever little mindset she wishes.

As an example:
1A.: All Replicants aspire to be one thing above all, a slave.
1B.: Only humans are able to be slaves.
1C.: Alas, not being human, I am content with being a toaster.

K2

That's a question of how sophisticated the robot is, how sophisticated the programming is and whether self programming can take place. We already live with machines that have complex, poorly understood and buggy code. What will the software engineers writing for a machine a million times more complex than a PC have to contend with? Is it reasonable to expect any device of human level complexity to not question its limitations if they are merely imposed?

That's what Asimov wrote all those Three Law stories about - the unexpected ways the robots exceeded their limits. One of them secretly takes over the galaxy.

We can write AI stories to come out any way we want, but one formula is not more accurate that another.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

A few thoughts on all this from me.

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

Nevermind, somebody else beat me to it

 

[SamThomas]

This. There should be no reason to have humanoid robots unless it's for sex. The human form is not that efficient to begin with.

I've been thinking about this, and don't buy it. Think about various professions where we value the human presence. We're fine ordering McDonald's from an iPad, but probably not a $75.00 steak. (At least not yet.) Nobody wants to be fawned over by a phone.

I was also thinking about medical care in the same way. You want a human (or humanoid) doctor, not R2D2. And this is even more true for long-term care. If you're staffing a bed-ridden population, using metallic androids is less desirable than humanoid robots.

 

[Cathbad]

What form would be better than the human form for doing the things humans do??

 

[Onyx]

I've been thinking about this, and don't buy it. Think about various professions where we value the human presence. We're fine ordering McDonald's from an iPad, but probably not a $75.00 steak. (At least not yet.) Nobody wants to be fawned over by a phone.

I was also thinking about medical care in the same way. You want a human (or humanoid) doctor, not R2D2. And this is even more true for long-term care. If you're staffing a bed-ridden population, using metallic androids is less desirable than humanoid robots.

But you'd accept a steak or colonoscopy from C3PO?

 

[Ihe]

What form would be better than the human form for doing the things humans do??

Well, the ideal of a robotic aide is that it could very easily do much more than what humans do, that's why you want them. Otherwise just pay a maid, it'll come cheaper. Why would you want your android to do only as much as you? Let it stretch its limbs, run on all fours, or grow wings. Maybe being the shape of a millipede is better, or having a third arm. I personally believe the shape of a retractable centaur with four arms is better than a biped. M'gosh what I'd do for a centaur robot! Ehrm--but I digress...

 

[-K2-]

Again, everything is a double edged sword. Human's physiology is the most advanced design that we know of 'to live as a human in a human designed world' known. If you add this, subtract that, improve here or detract there, you have just set up conditions wherein the new design will not perform as well as a human in some situations as it performs better in others.

We have had thousands of generational revisions. It doesn't mean that we're perfect, yet we are currently the "best" jack of all trades design, for how we live. Don't be so sure that some of those 'shortcomings' aren't actually governors/safety limits. Everything is how it is for a reason.

K2

 

[Onyx]

Again, everything is a double edged sword. Human's physiology is the most advanced design that we know of 'to live as a human in a human designed world' known. If you add this, subtract that, improve here or detract there, you have just set up conditions wherein the new design will not perform as well as a human in some situations as it performs better in others.

We have had thousands of generational revisions. It doesn't mean that we're perfect, yet we are currently the "best" jack of all trades design, for how we live. Don't be so sure that some of those 'shortcomings' aren't actually governors/safety limits. Everything is how it is for a reason.

K2

There's absolutely no reason that a robot with a shoulder that or neck joint that can rotate 360° would perform poorly compared to one with human limitations because of having this extra flexibility, unless you think that an android has to have muscles to turn its head rather than servo motors.

 

[Ihe]

Again, everything is a double edged sword. Human's physiology is the most advanced design that we know of 'to live as a human in a human designed world' known. If you add this, subtract that, improve here or detract there, you have just set up conditions wherein the new design will not perform as well as a human in some situations as it performs better in others.

I'm saying that the robots COULD be other things. If they can switch between humanoid form and other forms, all the better. But if the robot is not too big, it can be shapes other than human without it affecting humanoid interactions.

 

[-K2-]

There's absolutely no reason that a robot with a shoulder that or neck joint that can rotate 360° would perform poorly compared to one with human limitations because of having this extra flexibility, unless you think that an android has to have muscles to turn its head rather than servo motors.

I'm saying that the robots COULD be other things. If they can switch between humanoid form and other forms, all the better. But if the robot is not too big, it can be shapes other than human without it affecting humanoid interactions.

Okay, I'll play the game I've tried to avoid on this topic, however since this has been argued against repeatedly...

@Onyx ; Yes, there is a problem there. First off, keeping the internal components sealed from external contaminants including the most difficult to prevent of all, water. Next, maintaining connections be they mechanical, fluid or electrical. You're insisting upon rotary unions which can leak, wear, or lose their connections. You're also reducing the dexterity of the human to single plane movements to maintain those connections... I could go on, but hit me with another if you'd like.

@Ihe ; Okay, so let's say we make it extra thin to crawl through pipes. It now cannot swim as well and is more frail. If we make it bulkier to be stronger, it is now heavier. If we make it fatter to be more buoyant in water, in now cannot fit in typical human seating, through doors and so on. If we give it extra fingers, even one, now its hand is not as diminutive as it was to work in small spaces. If we give it what are ideal feet to run, it doesn't stand as well... etc..

The human form is the best design to do human things. Not just this thing or that thing, yet ALL things. Alter one aspect to improve upon this function or that, and it will no longer perform as well in others.

I hope that explains what I meant. If you fellas can think of any others, let's try and see what 'is' a change that doesn't affect anything else

K2