Good afternoon, everyone and welcome to another in a series of signs Town meetings. I'm rich deep in your host and moderator for this afternoon's town meeting which is a joint production of the Science Museum of Minnesota and Minnesota Public Radio and which is being broadcast live from the Arts and Science Center here in downtown St. Paul besides Town meetings are presented in park with funds provided by the Medtronic Foundation. As a reporter, I often find myself putting labels on people in order to describe them and what they do and what they stand for. It's perhaps regrettable, but it seems to be a necessary part of the business and that is why though I've known him for over two years. I find it very hard to properly introduce today's guest speaker. He seems to defy labeling art Harkins has been an Air Force pilot a satellite photo analysts and a Teamster but those are in his past. What are Harkins is currently acutely interested in is the future. He's an associate professor of sociology and education at the University of Minnesota. He also directs The Graduate concentration in future cultural and Educational Systems after you and furthermore. He is president of anticipatory Sciences Incorporated a private consulting firm in Minneapolis art Harkins likes to use big words one that you're likely to hear today is ethno nomics. It is a field of future studies at Harkins is develop. I need to find it as the study of the quote convivial interfacing among culture bearing biological and non-biological systems quite a mouthful out to me that all seems to mean pretty much what he's going to be talking about today. How are we humans and the robots that will serve as someday going to get along make sure that we get another point of view today on this somewhat speculative topic. We've asked, dr. Arthur Norberg to join us. Dr. Norberg is director of The Charles Babbage Institute for the history of information processing, and he is also an associate professor at the University in computer science before however, we hear from dr. Norberg. We must first year from our Harkins was here now to discuss a robot in your life Welcome. Dr. Harkins, please. Thank you very much. I'm up. I'm almost decided now not to use that word f nomics, but I will. What I'm trying to do is understand advancing Technologies of the kind that robots are sort of iconically symbols of robots are not new to human concerns. The Greeks had the conception of the automatic homunculus or the automatic human-like machine that could perform certain functions in Descartes time. It was alleged at least that he and others engaged in the fanciful. If not the the absolutely material construction of robot systems course in those days the the development of clocks and the development of of small figures or figures that were controlled by Mechanical Devices was a thing of that of the day. today we have for our icon of the robots, not the automatic man of the past but basically the Frankenstein monster and what we're dealing with as we confront the Japanese robot challenge, which I will speak to you later on is essentially an icon of the future tide in the form of a humanoid or a creature that shaped like a human being gone wild and so it's not unusual to find workers referred to in the Wall Street Journal as terrified of or anxious about robots and what those machines might do to their jobs Indeed. It is an auntie technological Society in some respects attempting to deal with its own products that I want to talk about today in terms of the icon of the robot. Know the nature of robots is essentially that they do things over and over again because they have been programmed to do that. Human beings have been the robot of the past. They have been program through the Industrial Revolution the Agricultural Revolution before it and through various tribal and other forms of social organization and cultural conditioning to do things over and over and over again. Now the key to understanding robotic functions in humans is the programming of essentially error-free performance. Nothing is worse than human evaluations of other humans in especially Industrial Age terms than the committed the commission of an error. No, unfortunately for us the only source of creativity is error. That is the only way that we learn how something may be done differently. Something may be conceived differently is to in effect deviate from the past ways of doing and conceiving thing. So ironically as we build our first generation of robots, which are now online in Japan more than any other country. And by the way, the machines were developed here before Japan. We we look at machines that are designed essentially to correct. The Inn efficiencies of humans on the auto and related production lines. In other words machines designed to avoid that most awful of human sins error. Ironically the third most interested country in the world today in robotics is not something some country and western Europe. It is the Soviet Union and why does the Soviet Union want to be third in robots by 1990 behind Japan and America? It's because the Soviets want to avoid worker error a recent Wall Street Journal article. Quoted Soviet industrial leaders is saying that worker alienation alcoholism absenteeism and just plain messing up on the job. We're causing huge problems and Soviet productivity. And so the Soviets one hundreds of thousands of robots online between now and about 1995 to eliminate from the great scientific workers socialist federal republic the sources of human robot error. And I think the problem here that I'm circling around is the very conception of the notion of error and clearly Frankenstein is a monster full of error Frankenstein went wild and as an Android more properly than a robot. Fought back against the scriptures of error freenas in the society around him and destroyed ultimately the source of his own creation. Doctor Frankenstein is rampant in the media treatment of robots in the human future. For example, the computer HAL 9000 in the film 2001 A Space Odyssey device which possess speech speech recognition and the capacity to manipulate not only the ship upon which are within which how was riding along to Jupiter but also to manipulate condescendingly and probably with a certain amount of distaste the human passengers aboard the ship and ultimately of course how I managed to destroy all but one human passenger now that image of the robot Moves the icon of the future the robotic icon of the future into a scenario of the Apocalypse. In other words. Here is the homunculus Gone Wild in the future as Frankenstein mythically went wild in the past and the worst of human nature in a sense comes through the past and projected future performance of robots. Well, the problem again is that we insist upon seeing human performance in terms of its deviation from established norms and tenant by and large to judge these deviations negatively robots of the near future meaning the next 10 to 15 years probably will enjoy in some cases more freedom of Citizen like behavior and volition that a large fraction of humanity. And very probably they'll receive better Healthcare putting Health in quotes and and better education putting education in quotes from the standpoint of programming then a very large fraction of humanity within the next 15 years. Why because they're more controllable? Because the cost-effectiveness of a robot is seen in terms that are increasingly radically different from the cost-effectiveness models used to judge human beings. For example, how much is a Baby worth? It's very difficult to judge how much a baby is worth until you begin to struggle with criteria for cost-effectiveness measuring and many of us will simply settle for a humanistic cost-effectiveness trade-off and say A baby is intrinsically worthwhile on the basis of human worth. How much is a baby robot worth? Well, we met right now use a very different set of criteria to judge the effectiveness and the cost of human of machine robots. But in the next 15 years will confront another kind of robot much more like a baby and intellectual terms then baby robots are today as matter fact robots today or more insect-like in their intelligence than they are mammal or primate like in their intelligence what will happen then in the 1990s 2000s early 2000s when robots have a certain degree of human-like intelligence or intelligence mimicry. Will we be treating them as human babies or will we be treating them as babies in the other sense of machine systems that require a long way to go before they can ever reach the human equivalent to human status. I don't think we're going to have too much time to consider. This particular issue robots can be updated reprogrammed in minutes humans require often for the same type of update years. The comparison between humans and robots begins to look very favorable for the robots in the 1990s because of the speed of learning of these types of systems through the Silicon brains or microchips that will be the source of their own quotes intelligence. For example at the Nissan auto plant in Japan today. It takes approximately 3 hours to update a robot to do a complex new job. It takes approximately three years to update a human to do the same work through on the job training. In other words to do the same piece of work as effectively as the automatic machine made of silicon and steel as opposed to the automatic machine made of carbon hydrogen oxygen and nitrogen or the human being. I'm going back to the notion of error for a moment. Humans are best conceived of in my judgment as are generating systems by that. I mean they are prone to be creative robots today are prone to break down which is to say to cease functioning because their latitude of decisions is so vastly narrower than human latitudes of decisions in virtually every circumstance where the two are mutually involved. I think that the robots of the 1990s which have the capacity to mimic many many human forms of behavior such as speech recognition and speech synthesis and the apparent capacity to experience and to evoke emotion. Mandy find out their status in societies. For example, Japan America and the Soviet Union begins to elevate beyond the status of many humans who do not have certain linguistic or emotional or Technical and other skills that a growing number of robots possesses now on the subject of numbers. with a world around Mass effort to produce automata It is conceivable the automata May outstrip human population growth within 20 years. Along the way taking millions of jobs along the way creating all sorts of philosophical and religious debates. About the meaning of non-biological life possessing near human or human-level intelligence. I would suggest to you that it is high time for those engaged in philosophical and religious concerns to begin to ask what will happen in the nineties when an Android or a machine shaped like a human being. Possesses the capacity to engage in physical intercourse with human beings. And possesses the capacity to stimulate emotion and generate speech as well as carry out household chores and other tasks that are commonly associated with being a member of a pair bonded human team. some quarters of human society will run from a question like that other quarters will run toward it and the court recorders that are running toward the questions of this type and have been doing so for decades are the writers of speculative or science-fiction and those who concern themselves with certain expressions in the Arts and it turns out that one of those expressions in the Arts is being transmitted fairly frequently out in Silicon Valley in California by a certain radio station in in San Jose. I had the opportunity to hear that radio station a few weeks ago and on it was being Play the song the first very disarming. very misleading song about a gentleman who comes home and finds that to his great shock and disgust his Boudoir is being occupied by his girlfriend and another he flies into a rage Runs Out jumps into his 18-wheel rig and Roars down the highway never to return it as he goes along singing his Ballad of lost love it gradually becomes a parent that he's singing about an inflatable doll. Quite a shock but humans have a way of telling us what they're going to do preparing us for a future through various means of unofficial expression or low status expression far in advance of the actual emergence of whatever it is, they're focused upon and certainly the film Star Wars has done that with its Laurel and Hardy caricatures C3PO and R2 D2 the to lovable robots that infect stole the film how to Hal 9000 in the film 2001 has given us a different view of the future a scenario of the Apocalypse where as in the case of Star Wars. We have a scenario of the Laurel and Hardy future the Most amazing film depicting a positive future for the human robot interface is in my judgment Fritz Lang Metropolis in which a female robot and I put the female on quotes. The device is shaped as a female saves human beings from drudgery robotic human labor. You know Factory like City and in effect opens up the possibility of great growth for human beings through the proper use of their tools rather than making themselves over in the image of their Tools in effect being robots better than or trying to be better than the physical robots the robots made of metal now, there is a new field developing. Robotics aerobic Tronix to refer to the electronics to drive robots and there is a new specialty developing. that of the roboticist I know some of you were thinking lobotomy at the moment, but the roboticist the eighth note Ron assist the Anthropologist interested in culture bearing electronic systems. And even the Ethel biologist. The person who is interested in how different type types of biological systems may carry different types of culture now on another level. And more mundane level up have some more vulgar level in certain ways, but certainly no less meaningful. We have a development of what we call the steel collar worker. The steel collar worker is a way of referring to essentially a non-human participant in the Productive labor force the robot so we are inventing gradually the language to deal with our own Creations in this terribly important area of technological development. What we are not doing is developing the understanding theoretical philosophical primarily understanding of robot systems as simply extensions of the human capacity probably Limitless to manipulate the physical and non-physical environments. In other words to shape physical things infinitely and to shape ideas infinite light soon. I think somewhere out around 1995 the Japanese or IBM or a Consortium of control data and Sperry univac and others will invent. the next form of sentient life on Earth unless the genetic Engineers beat them to it. And this will be the microprocessor or its great-grandfather in the future. Which can Carry on as complexly as any human being. Not that point whether or not but this particular electronic system is shaped in the form of a human. We have introduced our replacements. It is not inconceivable that an electronic system no matter how it shaped could live forever. Is not inconceivable that resource problems and pollution problems would essentially disappear for such electronic systems. It is not inconceivable that as we move toward the 1995 to 2010 emergence of what is called artificial intelligence and the means of making it mobile through robotic system that human beings will begin to become robot like themselves as they become more and more and more cases what we call cyborgs or humans who depend upon the amplification or repair of their their physical conditions through the implantation or the wearing of mechanical systems. Now that pacemaker is a good case in point many people could not live without it today. Now we're beginning to think of pacemakers that are implanted prior to the development of heart disease so that the pacemaker can in fact be there when and if the problem develops and so for replacement sphincters or add on speakers and so for eventually the direct interface of the human central nervous system with microprocessors. Know what I'm suggesting to you is that the line of evolution of human developed robots is paralleling now another line of development of the Cyborg and with the attempts on the part of technical societies to extend life expectancy out to about 150. If not the 300. We will see the gradual transformation The More and More Humans into analogs of robot systems, and eventually I think in two more for logs or complete equivalent systems comprable to robots in always Research is going on in the development of semi living microscopic electronic circuitry circuitry smaller in physical terms and Justice Complex in hypothetical terms as the human central nervous system conceivably. 10 20 30 years out a fraction of human beings could have the option of having their personalities gradually. exchanged With a semi living circuit grown into the skull. and after death continue their lives as they are now. packaged if you will in new types of brain environments such a package could be put into conceivably any kind of carrier system ranging from a biological one to a physical one to anything that big a pardon to a mechanical one to anything in between. No, I think it's very strange for us to consider some of these things because the the distance between a hulking monster of the Frankenstein type and what we are talking about is so great, but we must remember that in the technical societies today. Knowledge is currently doubling every 5 years and information is doubling roughly every two to three years. That's currently at the time of the 17 16 15 14 centuries knowledge literally was doubling on the order of thousands of years. Then hundreds then tens now five and a simple extrapolation with all things being equal thrown in as a caveat would indicate that knowledge doubling times will be on the order of weeks or months with in 20 years. So that what is strange to us today in the context of Robotics Futures what is strange to us in the context of the human cyborg with increasingly robotic characteristics? What is strange to us about the notion of semi living circuitry guaranteeing? the prospect of essentially you endless life maybe maybe very very commonplace 10 years from now to some fraction of humanity. My regret is that too often the debate over issues of this type or the concerns about issues such as we are discussing today comes down to a binary stance on the part of a those who are for and those who are again or another words those calling themselves humanists and those calling themselves Technologic technisys or a technology or scientific specialist. My judgment is that that is a most unfortunate dichotomy that we are developing convivial friendly mechanical systems and we're seeing this come to the software of certain types of computer programming which is been carefully written to support the user of the software. I see no reason why we will not develop robots that can express love and appear to respond to it in positive ways. I see no reason why in 20 years someone may not in fact wed and intelligent nonhuman system built in a factory somewhere in Japan or somewhere else perhaps even in America. The key here is to understand the nature of human or human. This is to understand that the key characteristic of intelligence is deviation from previous patterns or error nothing more deviation and intelligent system can create the more intelligent it becomes and ideally the more able it is to teach its its skills or its knowledge to those able to understand such things around it. ultimately We are I think looking at a new form of intelligent or sentient life and I think that are science fiction writers and senators are in fact preparing us for this future at this very time. I only hope that those who are concerned. with what they call the human aspects of all of this will not forget that the central meaning of human in quotes is the capacity to generate error and to build upon that error future expanded Choice. It makes absolutely no difference from my point of view how that humanity is packaged up what it is made of where it lives where it originated. It simply is intelligence or does not and we will drop I'm sure very shortly the unfortunate qualifier artificial from our discussions of this notion of artificial intelligence. Let me conclude with this. Conceivably many convivial robot systems will be online and homes in somewhere between 5 and 15 years taking care of the elderly taken care of now neglected children managing homes against fire and other forms of damage including intrusion is very conceivable that homes themselves will become robot systems as already some of our spacecraft are as entities robot systems out between here and roughly Neptune or I'm sorry. You're an ass at this time the idea. It separates the automatic system from the robot is of course motion. And many many automatic systems are now becoming a part of our lives were wearing them on our wrists or in our chess, but we will add to these shortly as motion, and I think we will add to the Human Condition more plus has been losses in the prospect. Thank you. Thank you very much doctor Harkins and now to have a bit of response to some of the things the doctor Harkins has said we'd like to introduce again. Dr. Arthur Norberg who is director of The Charles Babbage Institute for the history of information processing and the dr. Norberg is also an associate professor of computer science at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Norberg. Thank you, Nick. It's difficult to begin. To comment on what? Dr. Harkin has just said partly because there are so many unknowns in what he has said and it is that that I would like to address myself to this afternoon. There are many positive connotations to changing our world to changing the definition of humanity to changing the definition of era to including such machinery and I refused at this point to call it human and but do include such Machinery in our lives, which is a substantially different kind of Machinery than we have ever confronted before. The positive connotations are across that it can be used in many circumstances where either there are hazardous jobs to be done or error-free jobs that need to be accomplished. We can also included in the home to take out some of the more drudgery aspects of household life also to increase our Mobility perhaps by turning over a certain kinds of tasks to a such a device but with these comes a price And that we need to consider before their introduction and from what? Dr. Harkin is just said their introduction is imminent. And therefore we should begin considering these factors. Now the negative connotations derive somewhat from our lack of understanding about the man-woman machine interactions that we currently encounter. He mentioned it quite well when talking about the anti technological aspects of our society the binary split between those who like machinery and those who do not it's more complicated than that end. We should note that when we address our automobiles or are vacuum cleaners. They don't talk back supposing they did. Current machines do not resemble us even remotely no matter how many fins you put on an automobile that doesn't have ears but supposing it did and supposing these devices begin to resemble you will you be able to talk to them quite as easily as you talk to the vacuum cleaner? It may be that when these machines are ready for us. We may be ready for them. But what do we need to learn in order to be ready? We need to know more about interpersonal relationships how we deal with each other first before how we deal with machines. We need to know more about love between each other as well as how we're going to address such Machinery. We need to know how we function in small social groups. Most of the sociological literature has been in large social groups not small ones. How will we react to a machine that can discuss with us? How a task should be carried out when we already understand that it knows how to do the task error-free. What will be our response as humans to a machine that is a reflection of humans. I'm not sure I can cope with it. What do you think? How will we need to adjust our Behavior to maintain some sort of status doctor Hawk and talked about the the evolving status of such Machinery. But what about our own status? Will it lower? Can we find some way to maintain it or if possible can we find some way to even increase it when we have this greater ability to address social problems. What will be our response to error-free machines? It seems to me that it is one thing to eliminate error in production processes. That's fine. We can get along very well with that. But as machines become more perceptive and can be instilled with a thinking capacity similar to humans. Will we become more reliant on them to think about and assess emerging problems? If we do error, then we'll be redefined because very few if any humans will be able to make similar assessments to those made by these machines, especially if the problem is a very complex one that is what we are relying on computers to do for us now to struggle with complexity as that struggle becomes more internal to the machine where we have less and less control then error becomes redefined. We don't know where the air is are any more Alternatives will be in the machine in the same way that many of our discussions with ourselves. Never become Audible for others. The machine would operate in exactly the same way many research programs in artificial intelligence now or attempts to develop such machines. I was reminded when dr. Hakan was talking about the various films that there was another very interesting film recently for 5 years ago. Now I guess Wild Wild West how many of you have seen it but it was a fantasy world of robots, which did exactly what he described namely they were human. Like they had emotions. They had feeling they could think they could love they seem to be exact duplicates of humans in every way and you couldn't distinguish among them and they began to take over the world in which they were placed great in interesting conclusion to the film. I'd like to comment specifically about some of the things that dr. Harkin mentioned particularly this question of the status of non-biological life. There are two discussions going on presently about such issues. One of them is the debate already beginning in the discussions about the bio-engineering context of man-made organisms and the crossing of species lines when we begin to create organisms by Crossing species lines, we are doing something which is outside of the natural development as far as we understand it at least and the question is what sort of status to such new species after they have been produced that discussion will go on for some time. But if one can Define it for a living organism, then it would seem easy enough to just extrapolate somewhat further and Define it for non-biological life as well. Secondly in another area namely the replacement of human parts in surgery the question arises. Is there a threshold Beyond which a human which has become somewhat bionic is no longer a human and therefore should be treated somewhat differently in by the medical profession and maybe by others who may encounter this person as the replacement parts become more synthetically human. However, as we begin to synthesize human flesh perhaps in human bodily functions, then this problem will will disappear the first problem though of non-biological life is not likely to disappear at all. That will need considerable. Attention from us now since such non-biological wife can conceivably tolerate a different environment than ours. This will have substantial impact on some of our national policies. Will we need a Clean Air Act? Will we need to Clean Water Act will we need to worry about the use of our natural resources in the way? We use them now perhaps not where does that leave Youmans supposing that these machines begin to develop policy statements which demonstrate that it is unnecessary to continue the present policies. What does that mean for the society that is then existing? And in conclusion, I would say that we need more consideration of two things one the impact of such machines both studies of their past impact so we know more about the subtle effects, which is been produced by the introduction of such mechanical Machinery that has at least equal capacity in many cases to humans and second the capacity of humans and their interactions with others. We really do need to know more about how we interact with other humans and with the kinds of machines that we encounter everyday that is a major task. Both of these are not easy to do we are not at the moment doing very much research in either area. As far as I can tell and these should go hand-in-hand with any discussions of introduction of Robotics into our lives. Thank you very much. Dr. Norberg. And for those of you who are joining us saying the radio audience joining us late, you're listening to a discussion of Robotics and what the what role robots will play in our future in the next 10 20 or 30 years and our guest this afternoon or doctor are Harkins. And dr. Eric Norberg who have as you can tell it's likely at least differing opinions on what it's all going to be like in 20 or 30 years as far as human relations with robots and vice-versa. I'd like to invite her audience here in the science museum Auditorium to ask questions of our guests at this time. There are microphones in each of the two aisles, which you can use and the while you were thinking about a question you might like to ask her coming up to the microphone. I have a couple of questions of my own and this is I'd like at least to begin with S to put the doctor Harkins though. Dr. Norberg are certainly willing. I rather you're quite welcome to respond to a two. And I think dr. Harkins you alluded to this toward the end of your talk. But let me ask it anyway, it seems to me that it's a pretty common phrase at least amount of people including myself that says something like this that computers are really only as smart as the people who program them and if that's the case how will robots with computer Minds ever evolve beyond the humans who are programming them. Okay. Well I could say that a baby is only as smart as the people who give birth to it and raise it and that says a lot about quality control It also says a lot about something else when a baby grows up. It begins to use its knowledge in idiosyncratic ways. It is able to do that because it has the capacity to make internal associational errors and we called some of these creative others the opposite it also has the capacity to learn differently from its environment because the information it is it has incorporated from its parents for example, its sibling is altered in the act of incorporation so that the baby rapidly begins to deviate away from the plan patterns of socialization that the parents have provided and it becomes the babies Duty as the baby becomes a child in later and Adolescent and adult to fake. Much of that reality of deviation and pretend as though it doesn't exist now robots with heuristic. Circuitry meaning circuitry that can make if then associations or if than other associations in other words circuitry that can build upon its mistakes and build upon its successes by burgeoning its repertoire of response capabilities may need to learn how to fake what it really is capable of two human beings example. Calculators are designed today to have a slight delay between the push of the last function button and the appearance of the answer on the screen to give human beings the comforting comforting sense that the the calculator is actually taking some time to think. In fact, the calculator has the answer the instant the button is pressed. So they designers of the software in in the calculator really trying to be friendly to the human user and not in Salter or terrify or make anxious to hear music robots will be designed the same way with your ristic circuitry very often. They all have to be programmed what we call. Opal lightness algorithms. I suppose such that they will not always tell us exactly what they think for fear of hurting us and sometimes will delay telling us what they think so that we will have time to adapt to the fact that they in fact have something for us the in the form of an answer or response that we can use. I think one of the major programming areas of convivial robot systems will be the area of social graces which primarily are areas of prevarication. Dr. Norberg Yes, we can see a number of instances today with information systems. We're already the capacity of the Machinery has exceeded the capacity of individuals to deal with large amounts of data when a machine is programmed in such a way that it can begin to make choices in the way the doctor Hawkins just mentioned and understands how to make these contingent analyses if then what do I do next and it has access to other sorts of information at some machines do now machine in your office or your home could begin to talk to another machine halfway across the world through telephone lines and begin to gather information itself without your knowledge and then make some sorts of decisions. There is a case where the Machinery is going to be far better than humans and its capacity in their capacity to be able to make certain certain kinds of decisions. So we've gone beyond that stage already. Then we are in many respects any questions from the audience answer. I guess since World War II we've begun to to think and in some respects worried about the impact of automation upon the well-being of humanity and upon the well-being of workers. What what exactly are the economic implications of of of robots taking over the in the workplace who is who is going to pay our salaries and how we going to live and I know it sounds like a crude and common question, but I think it's I think it's a really legitimate one. These people are are scared of that. That's one of the reasons why there's a pop apocalyptic vision is is so prevalent. Okay, the United Auto Workers are now in in debate and negotiation over this very question because the Auto industry is the one most obviously trying to learn quickly down the road of robot ization in this country and they are asking for a four-day work week. They're asking for more time off. They're asking to be retrained as robot management people and robot repair people now, ironically this probably will take place that many of them. In fact will transition assuming they can make the technological transfer into that new area. But the question whether automation reduces human Choice as opposed Two jobs is I think answered automation provides more Choice. Unfortunately in the context of the American work ethic it may not provide more jobs, or at least if it does it will provide jobs. Where people are going to be tested their mettle quite well tested by the demands of the technology transfer from what they used to do to what they could do in the future. Follow-up question then given the fact given the existence of of this American work ethic which I think sometimes in a lot of cases gets a bum rap. What about What about the the implicate mean given that work defines a lot of Our Lives? What are the social implications of of of of losing that losing that connection and I think the the common response as well. We're going to have all this free time to go. He's wonderful Leisure things and was creative work. And what about what about the options for those people that don't think of themselves as particularly creative and that I really scared about what what they're going to do with all this free time if they really understood how how difficult the problem was. They be far more frightened. It is absolutely devastating to think about what people are going to do. It's only within the last couple of years that the major unions in the United States of even begun to address the much larger issue involved in Automation. And that is whether or not we can cope with all this free time. I choose not to have free time. Most people choose not to have free time. I do things with some sort of frenetic Behavior patterns that don't leave any free time in the in the sense that it's going to exist when automation takes over. What are we going to do? I can't answer the question for you. It is it is a good question and it needs addressing within the context of some of the others that I raised a few moments ago, but people are going to be absolutely devastated by this change and and Society could conceivably come apart as a result of it there two other things which also did not mention a few moments ago, which I think about to be brought in in connection with your earlier question. And that is the United States is going to be particularly vulnerable to problems with employment because of our immigration policies. If we continue to be the recipient for many people from around the world who need a better quality of life, then we're going to be pressed into directions. Not only the automation increasing unemployment for People coming in and unable to find jobs and their feeling of Devastation as a result of giving up what they had whatever it is and then trying to make a new life in the land where there isn't anything better for them. What do we do under those circumstances? How do we change our national policies not to let them out but to improve the quality when they get here. there's a Does an unfortunate misunderstanding I think abroad in the land concerning the work ethic we think of it as the really the job ethic if you have a job you're in good shape in America, if you're getting a better job you're in good shape work and job are two different contact Concepts. Your life's work is very different from where you gained employment. And I think that what Americans have to start doing is asking what they really want to do with their lives and that is there for their life work their jobs may vary quite dramatically. In fact, they may hold different jobs in different sectors of the economy at a blindingly rapid rate of transition compared to even to this past the three decades after World War II Dr. Harkins when you talk about error and automatonic being error-free, is that are free in observation or judgment or both? I'm in my meeting up to. Question of how error happens in human beings part of it is mistakes in judgment. And that part of that comes about through emotion seems to me the most obvious example being crimes of passion and if computers someday get emotion won't they be subject to the same kinds of potential for error that we have and ultimately And be doing the same kinds of things we are they won't be are free. They will contradict their own nature. Is that a yeah, that's a reasonable question and it's answerable at least now in the following way the more complex a system the more likely it is that it will be error-prone stray cosmic ray small bit of impurity in the microprocessor and suddenly what was a convivial robot doing certain things may become slightly less convivial to The Observer and it is the Observer here that's quite critical as a platform for judgment about the effectiveness of robot Behavior. The answer is yeah the Third Law of Robotics of Isaac Asimov in essence tied the robot down to committing no crime of any sort against humans, even if its own life as it were its own existence were endangered. It's conceivable that robots would make a judgment to the contrary under certain conditions of complexity in the future at that point many of us. Will be in Daily interaction with robots is equals anyway, and I think at that point. Will be well used to the idea of different forms of packaging of intelligence and probably to the necessity of allowing a certain amount of unfortunate potential future Behavior to come into our lives as a function of possessing intelligence. other questions Well, if there aren't any at least at the moment, I have another question then that has to do with the and I don't know exactly what to call him. But for lack of a better term Boards of Ethics that have been established around the country Cambridge Massachusetts ended city council, I think is become well-known for it with regard to regulating gene splicing and what and what not. She'll be done at universities and it's community and most major universities themselves have such committees that will allow only certain kinds at least for the time being of bioengineering and gene splicing to go on. I guess my question for both of you is are there such Boards of Ethics. If not in existence at least being talked about at places like the University of Minnesota and other places around the country. I know of no discussions of this kind at all that are going on at the moment. It is an interesting thought however, because one would have to then form some better notion of what are ethical codes are as as a societal group and they vary so much from one segment of society to another even in the United States and from one contacts to another that it would be difficult to conceive that we could arrive at some final set of principles that would guide robot Behavior difficult. Yeah. I'm reminded of the reference to Cambridge which went through a lot of RNA DNA of a joke in the in a recent issue of them cartoon in the recent issue of the New Yorker man is sitting in a chair with rather startled expression on his face in the background. His wife obviously is standing at the open door with her head turned toward him and she saying Arthur there's a there's a thing at the door. It says it's from MIT and it wants to know if it can plug in for the night. Things That Go Bump in the night, you know that thing again, we're back to them to the icon of the Frankenstein here and this time with a with a wedge of humor shoved under the the door and it's conceivable that that a wedge of humor ought to be shoved into arguments or debates about the future of automatic systems because it is conceivable that this stage in their development that we can program them up to be far more convivial in terms of our expectations are then if we sit back and let those who brought you the IBM selectric bring you the future generation of mobile automatics. Author I'd like to add one other point to that and that is you keep talking about the inevitability of these machines in our lives. Is it really as inevitable as you think it is? Yes, I think much more casual glance it at what's going on in military R&D would suggest that particularly and cruise missiles that very soon. We will have the capacity to purchase electronic devices that we can carry around with us that will let us read body heat and electromagnetic information and eye movement and body language of people with whom were talking and get some additional useful information about them in the process robots will use the same type of electronic equipment to read us out. Supposing Society decides not to use such devices. Is there any possible way of getting rid of them? My question is what is society? We use it as a metaphor to include all of us to think the way we do unfortunately increase increase the information flow in technical societies means that as each day goes by it's less and less likely that you will think exactly like anyone else, okay. Well on that all we have another question. Go ahead. All right. impact of robots on the declining School population impact of robots on declining School population. Well, I now have a vision that Arthur just suggested Sotto voce of of rows and rows and rows of a little desks with little robot sitting behind them mechanically going through the processes of becoming ignorant over time, you're talking about Lightspeed update as we say and a robot with expert system characteristics build into its quote memory can be updated by satellite with a lag time approximately one-third of a second from anywhere on earth. That is a form of education and it is I think going to be our future form of Education. I doubt very seriously that declining School enrollment is anything other than a positive harbinger of the future. What kind of a political system do you think would be best in a society where robots reign supreme or after another way? Do you think a robot could ever become president? I think we've had a couple I think again, you know humans who are struggling to do everything right and who are not allowing their creative as it were error generating impulses to come through and are being shaped by others do so behave are are increasingly not only a millstone around our necks and a high change environment. They can be positively dangerous. We need humans backed up by automatic tools and and other things to include robots to make the types of decisions that only are central nervous systems at this time or capable of making and these are extremely complex decisions that are multi-leveled and extend laterally as well and robots are simply not capable of that this time. All they can do is just well the automata within them can do is simply crank out rather. Alternatives useful, but but nowhere near our capacity Even when they do have our capacity assuming they reach that point there is no reason to suspect that. We would need to change the political structure that we have now, they might operate better in Congress than some will do operate there now but things like the Constitution are flexible enough that with some simple redefinition of some of the aspects that we've already talked about this society would fit in just as well that is a society robots would fit in just as well as a society people into into such principles. They would operate told each other the same way we do now doesn't seem like a problem to me and a robot could be president. Gentleman, thank you. Both very much are Harkins and Arthur Norberg for your comments and thoughts today enough to keep us thinking for quite sometime. Also, thanks for technical crew here today to add gorenflo and John tomor hear the Science Museum and the back in the studio Fred washer on the broadcast. Thanks to to Dave Chittenden of the science Museum's continuing education department for arranging for today speakers reminder. That signs Town meetings are presented in part by the Medtronic Foundation participation of today's guest speakers was made possible by the mobile foundation besides Town meetings will take a bit of a break over the next month or next and last one of this series will be 4 weeks from today on Friday, March 19th. When I guess we'll be dr. James Rutherford of the National Science Foundation. Doctor. Rutherford will be here to talk about science in our schools. Are we failing? Thanks for coming. Thanks for listening.