Computer - A Modern Day Frankenstein?
Just a side note: we have been getting some wonderfull comments from all of you on current AND older posts. I try to respond to all, or at least most, of your comments. If you posted comments here previously, I highly encourage you to check back on those posts to see what responses you recieved.
Get latest updates from Twitter: Twitter.com/MVPetrova
—————————–
“I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs.
How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavored to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful!–Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set, his shriveled complexion and straight black lips.
…I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.”
On September of 1817, Mary Shelly described the creation of a monster by a young scientist called Frankenstein. This fictional story was written 200 years ago and describes a man so blindsided by the hopes of playing God that he does not consider the consequence of becoming a creator of an intelligent life form.
What follows, of course, is a very sad and tragic story of the Frankenstein monster attempting to become accepted in society but instead suffering abuse from everyone he meets because of his monstrous form. This type of un-acceptance by other living creatures, drives the monster to become mean and finally to start killing people. Its creator, Frankenstein, must forever carry the burden of guilt for the deaths of those killed by the monster.
I found Frankenstein to be an extremely depressing book. The monster was obviously suffering and the author, Frankenstein, and other characters in the book seem to care only about the fact that the monster was ugly and was scaring everyone. This theme reminds me of Steven Spielberg’s ‘A.I.: Artificial Intelligence’ movie where the robot boy, David, is not accepted by the human society because he is a robot, as opposed to a human being.
Although Frankenstein and the movie “A.I” were created 200 years apart – the underlying themes are strikingly similar – creatures created by us, humans, whether monsters or robots, are not to be accepted on the same level as human beings. They are not given the same rights, or the same consideration for their feelings. Whether or not these creations think and feel like intelligent beings, they are sub-human and must be treated that way.
Granted, these creations in the shape of monstrous creatures or computerized robots exist thus far only in science fiction, but with technology sprinting ahead for the past 60 years or so, these creations can become reality even in our lifetimes.
Computers are already assimilating us into their vast network. Huge parts of our knowledge are stored on search engineers like Google, and that knowledge can only be accessed with the use of a computer. More and more person-to-person communication is done through texing, IMing, facebook, etc and thus requires the use of phone or computer. A bluetooth has already become a permanent fixture on the ears of most business people. Computers are regulating human hearts in the form of pacemakers, and hips and knees are replaced everyday with much stronger alloy joints.
Like it or not, piece by piece we are giving up ourselves to computers. The only difference between today and the A.I. movie scenario is that the computers have not yet become self-aware.
I few months ago I asked all of you, if you thought that computer simulation could ever completely replace physical laboratory experiments in engineering R&D. 95% of you said – “absolutely not”. Humans will always be needed to come up with new creative ideas and test them in the lab because a computer will never fully replace a human being.
That conversation reminded me of the two hundred year old Frankenstein story because it brought up an interesting point. Did Mary Shelly foresee the dilemma that we might be facing in the next 50 or so years? Could our creations finally take on a life of their own?
And what if they are superior to humans in strength, intelligence or survival skills? Would we try to justify our superiority as humans, by insisting that although these creations might be faster, smarter, and stronger than us, they are still lesser beings because they are not human?
Would we hate ourselves for playing God and treat our creations as less than human, hoping that this somehow would prevent the extinction of us as a species?
Perhaps this is a question that we all need to start asking ourselves, because it is possible that at this very moment, a real-life Frankenstein is working away at some university lab, creating his first “monster”.
Tags: computer modeling, computer simulation, engineering modeling, Frankenstein, Mary Shelly, reactive flows, robotics, robots, software modeling
Dear Masha,
You blog was finished by:
“Would we hate ourselves for playing God and treat our creations as less than human; hoping that this somehow would prevent the extinction of us as a species?
Perhaps this is a question that we all need to start asking ourselves, because it is possible that at this very moment, a real-life Frankenstein is working away at some university lab, creating his first “monster”.
According to the holy books we become God one day any way!
If we are capable to create it means that God will was so. In fact everything that we can do God itself teaches us.
So why should we be worry about our capabilities? If there is a question/doubt is in the head of someone it should be expressed and turn to understanding and serenity. We should consider all thoughts without any censer whatsoever.
It does not people that I promote abuse. I just say if God tolerate our errors why we are playing the advocate of God? Cannot God stop the abuses by its own? I think this type of logic somehow offend God because this is nothing but disguised version of vanity and taking ourselves greater and wiser than God.
I am working on a very ambitious project called ADEPP online 3D Training Simulator & Expert Support.
We use the “expert support” term instead of “expert system” because we don’t want replace human intelligence by a program or system so called “artificial intelligence”.
We hope to realise our project without any type of complex and remembering our vulnerability and limitations as an individual all time.
Kindest regards,
Fabienne
Wow, Fabienne!
Sounds like you are working on some very interesting projects. Very best of luck to you with that.
Computer vs. human vs. creation is always an interesting and controvorsial topic. That is why I like writing about it. Thank you very much for your comment (if you do not object I will also add it as a comment to my blog post, so that otehr readers can see it).
Interesting Discussion! Something to ponder …
We humans have reached a point where we are aware of responsible stewardship for our world. Also we have evolved technologies that permit us to make great changes — build mountains and rivers, create new species of plants and animals, etc.
Do other species share that sense of responsibility for (1) the world around them, and (2) the protection of other species? Are other species capable of such dramatic modification of our ecosystems?
Now, if we create a new “species” of considerable intelligence, will it share our sense of responsibility or will it seek to protect and advance its own self interests at the expense of others?
Many people believe that God created the earth and entrusted man as its steward to protect and utilize its resources. Others believe that we are just one of many species and have no greater right to our consumption than any other. The latter is often an agnostic perspective — whether or not God exists doesn’t really play a role in the decisions.
If we believe we are called to stewardship of this planet, then wouldn’t it be irresponsible to create a powerful new species that did not share that “belief”?
Conversely, if we believe we are equal competitors with other species, would it be self-defeating to create a species that could potentially be a formidable competitor with mankind? Again, that species would need to share our regard for mankind lest we invent our destroyer. But by imposing our beliefs on this species, we become inconsistent because we have asserting that all species have comparable rights to grow and evolve.
Hope you enjoy considering these ideas. It will be interesting to see how intelligent machines evolve.
Keep Smiling!!!
Thanks William!
Interesting way of looking at this idea from two different points of view. I agree that it certainly would be self-defeating to create a competitor for ourselves on purpose - I was thinking more of this “new species” being created unavoidably, as part of the future that we out currently building.
Dear William,
Power comes with responsibility.
We are more powerful that the other species, therefore we must be more responsible.
On the other hand protection of environment is nothing but a part of our survival effort.
We won’t exist if there is no environment.
The ideologies are just based on “idea” and necessarily the fact or absolute truth.
I personally, don’t believe on theory of competition so much. The creatures are not against each other but complementary to each other. Now, you may say if it is so why to survive they should eat (destruct) each other? I don’t know and it upset me a lot!!
As scientist we should not have or create any obstacle for thought. People talk a lot about freedom of speech but rarely freedom of “thought”. We are conditioned with many different things from the attitude of our family to our teachers, society, education, etc.
The first step is releasing all the chains and let our thoughts and imagination fly wherever they like.
If they go to wrong direction they will be detected as soon as we convert them to speech or thoughts and the others will adjust it somehow.
Kindest regards,
Fabienne
I don’t know If I said it already but …Excellent site, keep up the good work. I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks,
A definite great read..
-Bill