Blake Pruitt

Professor Malcolm Campbell

UWRT 1103 - H02

10-11/30-2/2019

“Showdown: The Human Race vs. Technology?”

“AI, what’s that?” this phrase that came from my mother, is an embodiment of society’s

look on Artificial Intelligence (AI). Artificial Intelligence is a subject that has been mostly

ignored until recently. My mother is a prime example, at the age of 40 she does not know a

single thing about AI nor even heard about it. It seems that all people know about AI is that it

supposedly makes robots smart which will lead to the demise of humanity. Just like the

“Terminator” franchise, where robots have taken over. This outlook doesn’t start with those

movies though, this debate goes all the way back to 1863 with Samuel Butler’s “Darwin Among

the Machines.”

Before talking about “Darwin Among the Machines,” it’s only appropriate to define what

AI and the “father” of AI. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, Artificial Intelligence is, “The

ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated

with intelligent beings.” The modern-day definition is derived from Alan Turing, who was a

cryptanalyst in 1945. (Copeland)

Turing is referenced as a man who developed many ideas for “machine learning,”

including the artificial neural network system. His contribution towards the field of AI was so

staggering that they hold a challenge for those interested in AI. The challenge is called the
“Turing test.” The “Turing test” is a challenge that tasks humans to create an AI that is to be

indiscernible from humans in intelligence. This test is carried out through three "players,” the

first being the computer, the second being the interrogator, and the third being the human foil.

The test is carried out by having the interrogator ask questions to both the computer and the

human foil, by the time the interrogator is done, they should not be able to tell which is which.

To this day, no AI has passed this test while being moderated to this point. There being no

official winner of the “Turing test” leads to believe that no sentient AI has been built. Just

because the AI isn’t sentient, doesn’t define its intelligence. Today, AI are “intelligent” in their

own ways through programming. Take the AI chess master “Deep Blue,” for instance. “Deep

Blue,” was an AI specifically made for chess by IBM and could take on the world champion of

chess at the time, Garry Kasparov. “Deep Blue,” wasn’t made for any other task than chess

though, it wasn’t sentient and knew everything that was going on around it. “Deep Blue” only

knew how to play chess, it only knew that knowledge. (Copeland) “Deep Blue” is the prime

example of how AI can be intelligent, but it only knows what is programmed to it, it wouldn’t

pass a “Turing test.” Considering AI intelligence raises many questions: “Will AI ever be

sentient? Would humans allow it to be so? If so, what will be their relationship with humans?

Will it lead to human destruction, or will it lead to salvation?” No one knows the answer to those

questions, but there are many theories.

“Darwin Among the Machines,” leads to reason that this argument has existed before but

is one of the earliest written forms of the idea of “machine overlords.” Butler makes the point

that mankind has evolved to this point and has developed to be above all the other species and

tries to answer the question, “If humans are superior now, who will eventually rule over

humans?” The conclusion that Butler comes to is that humans will eventually create their own
rulers in the form of machines. Butler goes further with this idea though and relates it to how

humans have been merciful to animals like horses, dogs, and cats, because they do not endanger

us and serve some function that is useful to humans. This idea of co-inhabitance is what Butler

insists, where these “mechanical rulers” will be merciful because they will need to depend on us

to live and have a future. Butler has a good understanding of looking at machinations through

Darwin’s point of view but flawed if not clarified. He seems to take the approach that these

robots will be alive just like an animal, and therefore will need us to sustain them. If the

apocalyptic scenario were to be played out, then he would be wrong, robots would try and

establish their own way and wouldn’t need the help of humans. On the other hand, if humans

establish robots with safety standards, there would be that sort of mutualistic relationship that

Butler points out. I align myself with the latter half, the key to a prosperous future with AI starts

with cautious humans. Whether it be humanity or just the job market, humans must prepare

themselves to be successful, or they’ll be left behind.

My thinking didn’t start this way though, like my mother I was convinced that robots

would end up replacing us all, or just become developed enough to replace us. It took a lot of

convincing from multiple sources to assure me that robots shouldn’t evolve to the point where

they do not need humans. According to the Future of Life Institute, AI should theoretically only

be dangerous if they are developed with malintent or given instructions that could be

misunderstood. It’s important to address that this is only a theory, the theoretical and actual, can

be quite different. Despite this point though, the Future of Life Institute still makes the point that,

if humans make AI safe, there is no need to worry, especially now, where that goal is far off into

the future. Applied to the manufacturing industry, even if new technology introduces itself, self-

sufficient machines are still a couple of decades from now. This means that even if automation in
some capacity is invented now, there will still be a need for assistance with the job and create

even more jobs to help maintenance the machines. Then when they do become sentient there

would still be people needed to monitor and help the AI as well, creating new jobs to replace the

old ones. This phenomenon of new jobs replacing the jobs lost from automation forms into a sort

of cycle that has happened throughout history.

A study done by Mark Muro, Robert Maxim, and Jacob Whiton, examined the cycle of

manufacturing jobs impacted by automation throughout history. Examining eras within the

United States like the industrial revolution and the “IT era,” where automation was introduced in

some form, but new jobs were created to counter the loss of jobs. Those examinations led to

believe that if there are humans willing to work, automation will never fully force humans out of

the workplace. They believe that automation has six basic tendencies, “automation substitutes for

labor, automation also complements labor, machines substitute for tasks, automation can increase

demand, capital and labor augmentation spurs innovation, and technological possibility is not the

same as technological reality.” These six basic tendencies are all beliefs that have only been

proven through history to be helpful towards humans but pay close attention to the last point, it is

a very important one. Muro and his colleagues found that these six principles are present within

all the eras involving change with automation so far. The “IT era,” was found to at first eliminate

a bunch of jobs due to the introduction of computers, but as the personal computer was being

developed, more jobs were created in both information technologies and manufacturing. They

easily replaced the jobs with new ones, even within the same field. This group of researchers

believes that the same pattern may happen again, meaning that there will be an initial loss of jobs

through replacement, but will then eventually the market would become even better than it was

before.
 New jobs can come in all shapes in sizes. When relating to the new AI related to

manufacturing, Tanya Anandan has come up with a solution that even helps the AI to start

working. Anandan has discovered with her team how to teach AI using virtual reality and

humans to pilot the robots, programming them through action. It is a slow process now, so

humans still win out when compared to these AI. This breakthrough though, has led AI to a place

it hasn’t really been before, which is the physical world. This could mean that robots and AI may

come sooner than expected, but I still believe that with how slow they are now and the

regulations mentioned in the Future of Life Institute’s research, it’ll be a long while before AI

can replace a person much less a part of the work place.

A commonality throughout each of these sources is the fact that people must be careful in

their actions and prepare themselves for the unknown. When I mentioned that the sixth point of

Muro and his fellow researchers gathering and analysis of data on the cycle of AI, they also

issued this same warning. That AI is still unpredictable in its impact. This is where connecting

the Future of Life Institute’s research and the research done at Brookings is important. There is

no mistake that underestimating AI and developing it to the point where it surpasses humans as a

sentient lifeform would be dangerous. As it stands now though, it seems that the destructive AI

that we have come to know is but a mere fantasy at this point. The lack of an AI passing the

“Turing test” and the want not to implement AI until proper safety factors are introduced, leads

to believe that AI will not probably come for decades. So, I believe that with how AI is now,

there is not much to worry about in the terms of job loss. I think I’ll take Gil Press’ approach to

how to handle this information, taking the apocalyptic scenario with a grain of salt for now, and

just work on improving human education.

 Works Cited

Anandan, Tanya M. “Artificial Intelligence’s Impact on the Robotics Industry.” Control

Engineering, vol. 65, no. 4, CFE Media LLC, Apr. 2018, pp. 28–31.

https://search.proquest.com/docview/2131580991/fulltext/FCED7E540F634441PQ/1?acc

ountid=14605. Accessed 14 Oct. 2019.

Butler, Samuel. “Darwin Among the Machines,” A First Year in Canterbury Settlement with

Other Early Essays. Victoria University of Wellington. London, 1914. pp. 180-185.

www.nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-ButFir-t1-g1-t1-g1-t4-body.html. Accessed

September 24, 2019.

Copeland, B.J. “Artificial Intelligence” Encyclopædia Britannica inc., 9 May 2019.

www.britannica.com/technology/artificial-intelligence. Accessed 23 Sept. 2019.

Muro Mark, Maxim Robert, and Whiton Jacob. Automation and Artificial Intelligence: How

Machines are Affecting People and Places. With contributions from Ian Hathaway,

Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings, Jan. 2019, pp. 4-8, 13-16, 19-46.

www.brookings.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2019/01/2019.01_BrookingsMetro_Automation-AI_Report_Muro-

Maxim-Whiton-FINAL-version.pdf. Accessed 23 Sept. 2019.

Press, Gil. “Is AI Going to be a Jobs Killer? New Reports about the Future of Work.” Forbes

Media LLC., 15 July 2019. www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2019/07/15/is-ai-going-to-be-

a-jobs-killer-new-reports-about-the-future-of-work/#39f9d2dbafb2. Accessed 23 Sept.

2019.
“Benefits & Risks of Artificial Intelligence.” The Future of Life Institute,

https://futureoflife.org/background/benefits-risks-of-artificial-intelligence/?cn-

reloaded=1. Accessed 3 Oct. 2019.