Man and robot

+

1. A robot may not harm humans or, through inaction, allow a human was harmed.

2. A robot must obey the man, if it does not conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its existence if it does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Three Laws of Robotics Isaac Asimov

In the interesting times we live in. Listen to other figures - mankind is doomed to a quick death. Listen to others - minor troubles like famine, war, terrorism, global warming and the presidential election is not very relevant, and it is time to address the issues is really serious, like the rights of animals. I'm not kidding: the legal departments of leading universities have already introduced such courses. All this is the place on the newspaper strip. They read and forget. But I want to look away. Two hundred years.

One can predict with absolute certainty: the days when any plague or death there Armada could change the course of history, are long gone. Now, in the twentieth century alone, the existence of our civilization threatened by the two world wars, the Cold War, fascism, communism, nuclear race - and we are not just survived, but won. Steel is stronger, richer experience and knowledge. And just richer in terms of available wealth. Apocalypse - Islamist, terrorist, energy, ecological - does not take place.

But one danger remains. Robot.

It looks like a joke. Moon rovers, welding machines at Japanese auto plants, vacuum cleaners, police robots that undermine the bomb - a threat to mankind? For the answer will have to first go back to the ancient past, when Athenian citizens were engaged in poetry, philosophy, mathematics - the fact that in modern American universities called the liberal arts, the art of a free man. And for physical labor slaves existed. Economically, this separation was absolutely necessary: ​​no concentration of the product of labor of many in the hands of a few progress is impossible. White America is also nothing to apologize for, though it is in vogue now. Slavery was the springboard that started it off, and eventually all won.

All economic formations, from slavery to capitalism, defined antagonism. Marx proposed to do away with it surgically, just eliminate capitalists by a proletarian revolution. Did not work out. Single-pole magnets does not happen, and the vacuum is filled feudal group, the nomenclature. HG Wells, as befits a social science fiction, brought the antagonism to the limit in the "Time Machine", where the descendants of the proletariat, the Morlocks, take full care of all the needs of the heirs of the ruling classes, eloev, and turn them into livestock. Fattened for meat. Rotate 180 degrees from the ancient times, when cattle (but not meat, and workers) were considered slaves.

Both scenarios, though not very humane, were quite human. Robot and did not smell. But history decided differently. When mature capitalism based on mass production, mass needed as a consumer, the proletariat, the only candidate for this position has become a middle class secured. Contradictions have a magnet, as it should, was bipolar, but the antagonism is no more. To do this, however, it required a substantial increase in labor productivity, and is where the robot came to the aid of man.

The word came up less than a hundred years ago Karel Capek. His fantastic robot (from the Czech robota) brought just two conflict: economic (began to displace people with jobs) and social (demanded equality). Hence the increased interest to them initially purely literary, and now the engineering and in the future is inevitable and sociological. Real equality of the robot to anything else worth looking at more closely.

Robot - a device capable of operating without direct human intervention. Two remarks. Function - a very broad concept. But, although it is possible robo-dog or a robotic horse, their social effect is not very noticeable. Other business - people. Therefore, the conditions for the functioning of the implementation to understand the functions of humans. And the second. "Without the direct participation" - hence, people are not eliminated from the picture, and continues to define the behavior of the robot, at least in general terms.

Yet the fulfillment of some functions, it is suspended and, if it is - labor function may lose a job, that is a source of livelihood. That is, at first glance, the robot danger. Yes, even in a favorite hobby human - to kill their own kind. Accordingly, a programmed robot will work better than a fanatic suicide.

But the robo-soldiers - not explosive package did not produce in the garage. Industrial production is inevitable with the participation of Governments and international organizations are unlikely. The times of global confrontation and the Cold War are gone. Ideologically, there is no one to resist, and economically there is no need. And the robot on their own attacking a person - it's all in the Department of malonauchnoy Hollywood fiction.

With the displacement of the situation is somewhat more complicated. In space, under water, and so on. N. A person must take with him a piece of suitable habitat, protected spacesuit or bathysphere. Replacing his robot in such conditions it is justified. But how to define these terms? Mortal danger? Threat to health? Isaac Asimov, a brilliant scholar of the relationship between the robot and the man and the author of three laws of robotics, proved conclusively that the robot, obedient to these laws, is obliged to protect the person from any "harm", even from disadvantaged vanity. It turns a man - the owner of land, the brave and the inverter, in the biblical paradise doll, only without the serpent, and therefore no way out.

To prevent this irreparable harm, Asimov's robots in agreement with the first law decided to disappear. Real robots do not, because the cause is not in them (the law can and change), and in the man who, as the offended child, runs for protection from the smallest trouble, like too hot coffee at McDonald's or lost his pants at the cleaners. However, not a robot, and in court, but with the advent of robots is unlikely to grow up. Pampered Americans is especially inherent, but also in the time of the Exodus, and after the fall of the Soviet empire, many preferred to lean, but a faithful servant of bread risky life of a free man.

But what about the lovers of independence, risk and responsibility? In the future, for example, the robot will replace human behind the wheel, potentially dangerous to themselves and others. Traffic rules, the speed limit - down, accidents will be no more. But for this it is necessary to prohibit driving a car all, regardless of their wishes and abilities. Turn not man on the moon, but on his own planet from the driver to the passenger. (Oops, as they say, Americans. It turns out, General Motors began to do so today).

In less exotic conditions, people have long been forced out of the many functions. Not a robot, and normal technical and economic progress. Disappears not even function, and the whole profession. Where cabs, laundresses, firemen, lamplighters? Those who had therefore to find other sources of income, what's the difference, the overall progress of the cause or a specific robot?

But there is a difference for the economy. Human labor is expensive. If we take 90 years for an average duration of life in civilized countries, its production period is not more than half of that period. During this half of it should produce enough to cover their needs for 90 years. Plus the needs of society, many of the functions which are necessary but not productive. Plus the disabled needs. Plus the resources necessary for scientific, technical and socio-economic progress, otherwise -stagnatsiya. Plus humanitarian aid. And I, most likely, something else has missed. Without advancing productivity growth is impossible.

Until the mid-twentieth century, the foundation of this growth has been mechanized. Seamstress with a sewing machine is not an example of productive seamstress with a needle. But mechanization options are limited: the man still remains the direct executor function. Two typewriters simultaneously seamstress can not work. Product cost (determined, in the final analysis, the cost of labor per unit) is visible, and a person has to buy it. Jobs, pleasant or not, continues to be a necessity.

But the robot has no such restriction. The costs are negligible, it can work around the clock, productivity grows without limit, and cost of the product falls to such an extent that it can be available to all on-demand, as schooling, roads, parks services, libraries, and in the Western socialist medicine and much more.

The easiest way to give in robotics routine functions of mass production of consumer goods. So, in terms of cybernetics, positive feedback: man, these functions are not interested, it's only source of income. The robot would deprive it of earnings, but will make free, is required. To some it will provide an opportunity to retrain, others want a guaranteed standard of living. There is no conflict. And in the end will only human features that are interesting to him. Creation. The science. Competition.

The desire to demonstrate his physical or intellectual superiority - incentive exceptionally strong, especially in a society where free access to the benefits produced by robots, deprived of any sense of superiority term financial. Under the assumption that mankind are available in almost unlimited resources of the solar system (and soon to be), it is not difficult to imagine how such a society might look like.

In accordance with the third law of Asimov, robots will take care of its existence, including the reproduction, maintenance and programming. The first law will oblige them to ensure the safety of every person and provide him with all necessary. For whims, if they do not harm anyone, there is a second law: do me this. Resources lacking, everyone will be happy. The capitalists, who now provides all of this in the calculation of income have considerably to make room. Or does leave.

Robo-economy will create material equality. Who wants to can stand out from the mass of intellectual or sports. Does anyone appreciate his efforts, it is another question. It turns right in the dialectic spiral Hegel wanted to look forward, and came to the thousands of years ago. Those ancient Athens: the elite, demos, slaves. Olympics, sculptures, temples. Poetry, philosophy, science. Only instead of robots slaves, with whom the conflict, the more antagonism can not be. Instead of a two-pole magnet is demagnetized society in general. Ruin take nowhere. Socio-economic progress - too. Can this be regarded as the golden age of mankind. You can - stagnation and slow death. A matter of taste.