Whose leading the field?

As stated by ‘Robert Pepperell’ in his book ‘The Posthuman Condition’ (2003), many of
those living within the current field of AI predict co-inhabitation of humans and
humanoid beings within the 21st century.
With ‘funding-hungry’ research setting it’s sights on “smaller more achievable areas of
investigations such as ‘search and rescue'; the emphasis more on whether it shows a
clear, practical benefit in actively extending human abilities, rather than replicating
them. Thus we’ve found ourselves at a point wherein AI is there to “empower” us.
“A useful tool for understanding the mind”
(Introducing: Artificial Intelligence” Henry Brighton and Howard Selina)

To truly understand the nature of things, one

must imitate that thing itself.
In creating robots who ‘walk’ and function
similarly to humans, we’ve bettered our
understanding on what and how these mental
and physical processes occur.
The field of medicine and human augmentation
has flourished with this understanding, and have
allowed people to interact with the world, in a
way that feels more 'life-like’ in people’s
experiences.
AI exists, therefore, to some extent as a means
of enhancing humanity, in ways we have get to
evolve.

ECCEROBOT Design Study [EDS] (2009).

An attempt to imitate human anatomy in this prototype led to stiff joins, a twisted spine and dislocated
shoulder.
This was one prototype within a larger project in understanding movement in relation to anatomy, and paved
the way for better understanding and appreciation for the human body.
Quite recently a woman has received a prosthetic hand that allows for sense of
touch (BBC, 2018). Allowing for easier to accomplish “mundane but important
things”. As she states, she feels “ it’s almost like it’s back again”, and “complete”
This augmentation not only makes robots safer (potentially within the
workplace), but also technological aids for people with disability.
Kaspar Kaspar (created and used between 2005-16)
helps young children who have autism.
These animatronics were designed with the
purpose to improve the communication
between children who struggle reading
emotions, meaning they can develop the
everyday skills that we often take for granted.
Autodesk
Software such as Autodesk (creators of Maya)
can use AI to create thousands of brand new designs. As Computer Animation students
we all know how difficult it is to produce 100 thumbnails but imagine how beneficial it
would be putting a design into a machine that creates thousands of more for you from
just that one design!

Does this mean we are no longer needed? No. Absolutely not.

As humans we understand what we like as a species, and robotics- at the moment- is
not at a point wherein it’s easier to rely on it to calculate or use these recognized
likes/dislikes within the field. We decide what needs calculating, and apply it
accordingly.
Also in the absence of a ‘self evolving’/ learning software, it cannot account for the
new anomalies of nature that may pop up, to gives the differentiations in species
needed for evolution and survival.
Understanding Our Unease
1) Value
Artificial Intelligence was originally feared when the human body was re-
imagined (1500-1700) “as a complex machine- a unified whole made up of
many smaller systems that worked together” (‘Robots’- Science Museum).
If ‘life’ was no more than the movement of cogs and gearwheels, then what
was its value?
Does this mean life looses value?
No- if anything understanding the nature of the body helps us appreciate more
that which we otherwise would take for granted.
2) Replaced?
Are we a mere subset of an overarching techno-biology, wherein we’re a
temporary phase in a larger evolved species? Is this a problem?
Co-existence isn’t negative, nor is the stage of humanity in evolution. There’s
no reason for humanity to disappear if we remain an active part within the
industry of AI.

3) Challenging the humanist mindset

Human consciousness may no longer be contained within the brain, and
“attributes like human thought may be created in non-human forms”.
The ‘Humanist’ view that sees humans as “separate entities in perpetual
antagonism with a nature that is external to them” is no longer applicable.
Playing ‘God’?
“In the humanist period of western development, where science advanced and
deities held less sway, it even became possible to think of our selves, with our
intelligence and skills, as coming to dominate a fickle and violent nature”.
Though consciousness is not necessarily the ‘end goal’/intention, it’s perfectly acceptable
to consider the potential for conscious life. We can be aware of it.

For years we’ve seen technology as a means of controlling the world around us. But now
we’re in an ironic position- wherein technology is starting to (in some regards) outshine
our own abilities.
“In the humanist period of western development, where science advanced and deities
held less sway, it even became possible to think of our selves, with our intelligence and
skills, as coming to dominate a fickle and violent nature”.
We once saw our existence as ‘intelligent life’, inevitable in our universe (The Strong
Anthropolic Principle- Barrow and Tipler 1988).

However, organic computers and genetic modification has challenged human dominance
and in a loss of control, we’ve made assumptions of the potential for AI.
If something comes into being, then who are we to take that away?
AI is not merely a discardable technology/field of study, that cannot allow for ‘good’. It’s
shown to help advance us, and to get past the limitations of our beings and strive for
equality and helpful aids within our existence.
4) Power
Understanding how life functions also comes with power. The
earliest examples of robotics were commissioned by the Catholic
Church as miraculous displays life.

Whether the power lies with humanity or robots, rather than

react with blind panic from our lack of control, to whatever
threatens us, we can put precautions in place so we know how
to act in specific circumstances.

5) The loss of control

Messing with things that we can’t possibly understand. Wherein
we loose the control or understanding of ‘conscious’ robots.
Currently there’s a ‘tangible crack of a storm in the air’, wherein
we recognise we’re able to create “entites that may equal or
even surpass us”, but may be unable to defend against them.
It’s inevitable.
“We cannot hold back AI any more than primitive man could have
suppressed the spread of speaking” – Doug Lenat and Edward
Feigenbaum.

Humanity has used tools to achieve things our bodies cannot otherwise
do (cut through food and rock, exist within the vacuum of space etc.)
Robotics and AI are arguably a mere extension of this.
For all the risk the field poses, it has also
reduced the risk for many other problems
humanity has faced to this point.