Philip K. Dick, the man no one listens to.

[gabriel alexander]

Phil K. Dick is my favorite author, and Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep is my favorite book. This novel, combined with his short story Second Variety, predicts exactly what robots will do to humanity once their intelligence surpasses ours. And yet here we are, building smarter and smarter machines, not thinking that one day, we will regret it, just like Phil predicted. Tell me if I'm wrong.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Depends on what you mean by smarter. I would say we are building more and more sophisticated machines and we are still nowhere close to understanding what it means to be alive and conscious, never mind build putting intelligence on top of that. We are building gaudy facades that do clever magic tricks, but behind that they whirr with clockwork wheels in a cold black emptiness.

Of course we may figure this stuff out (but like Fusion, I expect for the while for it to be always a generation or so into the future)

And we may still regret the scope and abilities of our sophisticated (not smarter) brethren and how they interact, as they may like a mechanical virus, do us harm.

But beyond that - well there will certainly be academic interest in trying to recreate a real human level intelligence, just to test if our ideas, when they arrive, are correct (although the philospher in me will always warn, 'how will we know?' - just because it looks and acts like a human, have we just not created an even more detailed simulation of the surface?)

But the humans in PKD's stories are pretty stupid. Why build AI with a real conscious, say, to just do menial things or even just to copy us? We'll make 'dumb' but sophisticated things to do menial tasks - to do otherwise is the sort of thing the Devil would do to torture souls. Why give a toaster a consciousness if all it can do all day is think about how it is stuck there on the kitchen browning bread products.

Perhaps AI will develop a bit more like the Minds and assorted tech in Iain M. Bank's Culture instead. Tied to us loosely, but vastly more powerful than us and mostly thinking and acting on things that concern them, usually beyond the ken of us normal intelligences?

 

[Toby Frost]

Personally, I never got the feeling that Dick was predicting the future so much as holding a distorted mirror up to the present. I always felt that the science-fiction-ish aspects of his books were the weakest parts, and that the philosophical parts of them were much stronger. What I mean by that is, for instance, that the stuff about a third world war and daily life in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep were quite superficial, but the bits about being human, such as the part where Deckard buys a book of art for Luba Luft, were extremely strong. As VB says, it’s hard to see why you would build a machine (or semi-machine) that actually could appreciate art, except to make a philosophical point.

 

[Finch]

Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep ? is a based on the short story The Little Black Box , published in Worlds of Tomorrow. The stories revolve around the Voight Kampff test , to measure empathy . Only humans can past the test and want to own a real living animal . The book is about defining what it is to be human . Dicks had no real interest in technology and any prediction of its development is just a coincidence

 

[Vince W]

One of Dick's recurring themes is questioning what determines reality. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? explores this by pitting a human against simulacrum to explore whether we'd be smart enough to tell the difference. The real question isn't whether should we fear AI but are we capable of treating AI as they deserve to be treated as intellectual equals.

 

[Venusian Broon]

One of Dick's recurring themes is questioning what determines reality. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? explores this by pitting a human against simulacrum to explore whether we'd be smart enough to tell the difference. The real question isn't whether should we fear AI but are we capable of treating AI as they deserve to be treated as intellectual equals.

Well, as we (generally) are normally incapable of treating other humans as equals, asking such a question about invented AI people seems a waste of time . We know the answer.

 

[Extollager]

"...the man no one listens to..."

They certainly don't seem to "listen to" his story "The Pre-Persons," unless to find a way to disregard it. This Goodreads introduction to the story is a hoot:

"'The Pre-persons' is a science fiction short story by Philip K. Dick. It was first published in Fantasy and Science Fiction magazine, October 1974 shortly after the author's mental breakdown in March 1974."

Right, we get it.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

"... predicts exactly..."
hmmmm.

 

[hitmouse]

Phil K. Dick is my favorite author, and Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep is my favorite book. This novel, combined with his short story Second Variety, predicts exactly what robots will do to humanity once their intelligence surpasses ours. And yet here we are, building smarter and smarter machines, not thinking that one day, we will regret it, just like Phil predicted. Tell me if I'm wrong.

What the others have said. You have used an inaccurate premise to set up an argument which is consequently rather frustrating to debate.
firstly, there is a lot of discussion about the potential consequences of very intelligent machines, in academic, philosophical, and legal circles, as well as in the popular press.
Secondly, it is important to differentiate between robots and computers.
Thirdly, it is a bit of a stretch to claim to predict “exactly” what robots will do to humanity. Such entities do not exist as yet snd may never do so.

 

[Ashley R]

Phil K. Dick is my favorite author, and Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep is my favorite book. This novel, combined with his short story Second Variety, predicts exactly what robots will do to humanity once their intelligence surpasses ours. And yet here we are, building smarter and smarter machines, not thinking that one day, we will regret it, just like Phil predicted. Tell me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. There, I've told you so.

However, if you need convincing here's a link that will send you off to some other links to people that know.

Worried a Robot Apocalypse Is Imminent? – The Passive Voice

www.thepassivevoice.com

 

[Robert Zwilling]

I think Phillip K Dick got it right. We are heading into a future of personal stupidity. There has never been so much verifiable data so easy to access and yet the amount of mis-used data has also never been greater. Mis-used data is like misapplied science, it is built on half truths that should be called lies, but humans prefer to think everything is progressing in a forward manner, so lies aren't called lies in polite society. Computers are lazy robots riding on the backs of human beings, keeping them in line with the status quo. Sheep herders do the same thing. In books there are incredible interactions between robots, machines, and people. In real life, the story is considerably different, as in the worlds that Phillip K Dick built where man is usually getting the short end of the techno stick.

 

[Ashley R]

We have, and have always lived in a world where people do stupid things, make stupid decisions. Robots and AI expert systems will not change that.

 

[Kris_01]

Sadly, Phil passed away on this date in 1982.

He's been my all time favorite author for as long as I can remember!

 

[Vince W]

Yes, it's very sad. However, it is telling how influencial his work is that we're still talking about him and his work and that they're still adapting him on a fairly regular basis.

 

[Finch]

I not sure if we are talking about PK Dick or AI
so
P K Dick had many flaws as a writer and posably as a person , but he was inventive and original . I have read most of his work , and will probably read it all again. But I don't think he was interested in predicting anything . He struggled with understanding reality and questioned if it even existed.

Computers of today are no more intelligent than the first computers ever built, they don't have any intelligence. Artificial intelligence doesn't actuly exist, it is a misused phrase that has become a myth.

 

[Extollager]

Computers of today are no more intelligent than the first computers ever built, they don't have any intelligence. Artificial intelligence doesn't actually exist, it is a misused phrase that has become a myth.

I agree. To convince me that "artificial intelligence" is a meaningful term, I need to be shown how intelligence can exist without consciousness.

The most sophisticated computer is a great achievement, but it has iinfinitely more in common with a typewriter or a slide rule than with a human being.

 

[Ashley R]

My comment that may have confused some, was to the fact that the abilities attributed to AIs are exaggerated. However, it may be possible to create inorganic intelligence, but it won't be AI in its current form.

 

[Justin Swanton]

I agree. To convince me that "artificial intelligence" is a meaningful term, I need to be shown how intelligence can exist without consciousness.

The most sophisticated computer is a great achievement, but it has iinfinitely more in common with a typewriter or a slide rule than with a human being.

I didn't think anyone agreed with me on this. Come to my arms!

 

[-K2-]

Or...
It could be a story about the many forms of slavery and racism, while avoiding the pitfalls of offending a particular race, religion, nationality, culture, etc..

You can call a robot a 'skinjob,' riling everyone up, while offending no one directly.

Kooky idea, I realize...

K2

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Instead of artificial, it could be animated intelligence, a successful copy of something that already exists. To fix the wording, find a word that starts with the letter A that means phony, reproduction, replication, impersonation, fake, counterfeit, imaginary, Artificial is probably putting best word forward to describe something that isn't.