Originally, however, it was programmed by a human. Robots may indeed be programmed intelligently, but robots can never replace humans. According to Kevin Money, It Is said that “Google and a lot of other companies believe robots today are like cell phones back when they were the size of bricks and cost $6,000. It may take 10 or 20 years, but before long everybody is going to have a robot – or several” (Money, 2013). Robots work alongside human beings to ensure accuracy, precision, and skill that human beings cannot perform on their own.
Dan Lyons states that, “From self-service checkout lines at the supermarket to industrial robots armed with saws and taught to carve up animal carcasses In slaughter-houses, these ever- ore-intelligent machines are now not Just slanting workers but actually kicking them out of their jobs. Automation isn’t just affecting factory workers, either. Some law firms now use artificial intelligence software to scan and read mountains of legal documents, work that previously was performed by highly paid human lawyers. Surely, robots are designed to assist humans, but can they really replace them? Author Michael Brooks writes about Hugh Lobber, a philanthropist from New York, whose goal Is to create total unemployment for all human beings throughout the world. He wants robots to do all the work. And the first step towards that is to develop computers that seem human when you chat to them. It’s not a new idea. Alan Turing is credited with the first explicit outline of what is now called the Turing test.
A human judge sits down at a computer and has a typed conversation with an entity that responds to whatever the Judge types. If that entity is a computer, but the judge thinks It’s a person, the conversational computer program passes the test (Brooks, 2013). ” Human beings are highly flawed creatures and they often make mistakes. Robots, on the other hand, are computers – they execute a skill, time and time again, without flaw, for the most part. That’s why they are often used in medical settings, so that doctors can have the assistance of a robot to help execute a task.
Dan Lyons states, “surgeons are using robotic systems to perform an ever-growing list of operations–not because the machines save money but because, thanks to the greater precision of robots, the patients recover In less time and have fewer complications, says DRP. Myriad Cure. ” However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that robots are going to replace humans. The surgery bots don’t replace surgeons;you still need a surgeon to drive the robot” (Lyons, 2013). Unfortunately, computers are computers, and one day, they will crash. It may not happen right away, but eventually, there will be a glitch, a mistake, or an entire shutdown.
Computers do not have a will or desire to complete a task, so they are only as good as they are programmed. In fact, there are many attributes that computers simply cannot intelligent as they may seem. It is inaccurate to think that a computer may genuinely mimic or replace a human, because they simply don’t have mental skills. A robot may be programmed to respond to certain types of tones, words, or body language, but the beautiful thing about human beings is that they can come up with their own responses on their own – no matter what the stimulus may be.
According to Greg Egan, it is healthier to communicate with a real human being rather than an artificially intelligent one. He states that, “The art of conversation, of listening attentively and weighing each response, is not a universal gift, any more than any other skill. Honing one’s conversational skills with a computer–discovering your torrents and weaknesses while enjoying a chat with a character that is no less interesting for failing to exist–might well lead to better conversations with fellow humans” (Egan, 2014).
This is significant because human beings need this sort of interaction for mental health and stability. If one were connected to a robot, rather than a human, they would get a false sense of reality. Michael Brooks feels the same way about it. He says, “When we talk to each other, whether it’s about last night’s TV or the wisdom of a military strike on Syria, we are doing something far harder than sending a rocket to the moon. We did the moon-shot decades ago but we still can’t make a machine that will hold a decent conversation” (Brooks, 2013). Human beings make mistakes. It is simply a part of human nature.
If a human was around a robot that didn’t make mistakes, or wasn’t “human” enough, then the person would become uncomfortable. According to The Economist, “To keep human workers at ease, collaborative robots should also have an appropriate size and appearance. Collaborative, humanoid robots should generally be no larger than a six-year-old, a size most adults reckon they could overpower if necessary. Large eyes make robots me friendlier and, crucially, more aware of their surroundings. ” This goes to show the relationships that humans have with each other: the bigger and stronger a person seems to be, the more intimidating they become.
There is a trust issue that takes place within the need for big eyes to seem friendlier and the need to be aware of current surroundings. Isn’t one of the greatest parts of being human the ability to judge character and decide, individually, who is frightening and untrustworthy and who is not? The article also adds, “But overly humanoid features can lead to problematically unrealistic expectations. So, if the robot were to randomly burst into flames, then the human would no longer trust it. Alas, assuming the robot could be trusted in the first place would lead to unrealistic expectations – expectations that are not human enough to exceed.
Robots are unique because they are programmed. Humans are unique because they are not – meaning they are able to think for themselves and make mistakes. The Economist states that it is important to give robots “A defining human trait–the ability to make mistakes. Mama Salem programmed a humanoid Asimov robot, made by Honda, to make occasional harmless stakes such as pointing to one drawer while talking about another. When it comes to household robots, test subjects prefer those that err over infallible ones, DRP Salem says. This is significant to see that humans prefer robots to be more human-like by making mistakes because it makes the person more comfortable. It is almost laughable, because a human is such prone to error, so the robot might as well be, they would prefer a robot to make a mistake would mean that they are searching for that connection – a connection that would sound something like, “we are only human” and they shrug it off and feel comforted again. Although robots are indeed artificially intelligent and have many technological capabilities, they still can never be exactly like humans or completely replace humans.
They may be able to help doctors and surgeons, factory workers, and make life a little easier in the everyday world, but they simply cannot mimic humans. Therefore, the idea of connecting with a robot should be thrown out the window, along with the idea of making a robot make mistakes on purpose for the comfort of the nearest human being. What the nearest human being needs is to connect with the next human being and have a reassuring conversation hat they will not lose their Job to a robot – unless they fail to program their robot properly.