Cauthorn 1
Courtney Cauthorn
Dr. Steven Faulkner
ENG 150-50
24 November 2014
Artificial Intelligence: The Unexpected Demise of Humanity
Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
Can robots really take over the world? Former president of the Institute for the Future,
Roy Amara once said, “We tend to overestimate the effect of technology in the short run and
underestimate the effect in the long run” (heard on Ted Talk with Rodney Brooks). In our age of
computers, tablets, and smartphones, our natural inclination in the twenty-first century is towards
technological innovation. Though not always obvious, artificial intelligence is a part of our
everyday lives. Artificial intelligence is responsible for routing calls on our phones, approving
any purchase with a credit card, recognizing faces for us to “tag” on Facebook, transmitting
movements in a video game, and translating any phrase we search on Google (Norving).We are
constantly searching for the “next big thing;” the latest and greatest invention that will make our
lives easier and procure envy from our peers. However, isn’t it possible that we could take our
tech-savvy lifestyles too far? We have become enslaved to our machines, and it could be the
death of us.
Throughout history, technology and machinery have held a dichotomous standing in the
minds of humanity. During the Industrial Revolution, for example, some people of the early
nineteenth century welcomed the innovation of mechanized labor, but others (namely those
whose agricultural jobs were being taken by said machines) worried over the job loss (Brown).
The grand shift to urbanization is clear: 41% of Americans were working in agriculture in 1900.
By the year 2000, that percentage had shrunk down to only 2%. As time passes, we find that
history repeats itself. Due to increased mechanization in factories, the amount of Americans
Cauthorn 2
working in the manufacturing industry has dropped from 30% to 10% between the post-World
War II era and today (Rotman). The desire for innovation was taken too far, forcing relatively
well-off workers and farmers to uproot their lives, and start from scratch in an entirely new field.
By the mid-twentieth century, interest in artificial intelligence grew. The quest for a
better machine is, according to artificial intelligence author, Pamela McCorduck, “irresistible.”
She says history is “full of attempts—nutty, eerie, comical, earnest, legendary, and real—to
make artificial intelligences, to reproduce what is the essential us” (McCorduck 3). Grey Walter,
a researcher at University of Bristol, constructed some autonomous turtles with the ability to
move and react to their surroundings. One turtle named Elsie, for example, reacted to the world
around her by changing her sensitivity to light when her battery was running low. According to
Walter, this behavior was considered unpredictable, much like the behavior of real animals. That
was in 1948.
Researchers started out by working together to create one human-like machine, but, after
realizing the level of difficulty involved in this venture, ended up splitting up and working on
individual features of this theoretical human-like machine. These characteristics included actions
such as recognizing speech, identifying one’s environment, being able to make inferences—even
playing chess. IBM’s Deep Blue computer was able to beat Garry Kasparov, world chess
champion at the time, in a game of chess in 1997. Deep Blue’s secret was the ability to calculate
200 million possibilities per second in the game, and where they might lead, in order to select the
right move. This is an impressive feat for a computer, but it is only one skill. Deep Blue could
win at chess, but couldn’t tell anyone how it chose its strategies, nor perform any task other than
chess. This could not, therefore, be mistaken for true human intelligence (Norving). Researchers
were, however, getting closer to the key to building a bigger and better machine.
Cauthorn 3
More so than historical accounts, the worlds of literature and film give insight to societal
feelings towards advancements in technology. Scientists clearly expressed their hope and joy at
the idea of a “human machine,” but everyday citizens held quite a different viewpoint. The 1957
film, Desk Set features a group of women who work at a reference library for a broadcasting
company. The ladies’ task is to research and provide answers for questions on any possible topic,
and report to the company. The network decides to bring in two computers (referred to as
“electronic brains” in the movie) in order to help with the work load. The women fear that they
are being replaced; one even exclaims, “That means the end of us all!” (Desk Set). Charlie and
the Chocolate Factory, a 2005 film based on the 1964 novel, contains a section in which the
main character’s father, Mr. Bucket, loses his job screwing on toothpaste caps to a machine
which can complete the same task more quickly and efficiently. The job loss leaves Charlie’s
family destitute and living in a shack (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). The writers of this
time period clearly had a fear of machines stealing away their careers and livelihoods. Perhaps in
a more extreme method, Harlan Ellison writes in his short story, “I Have No Mouth, and I Must
Scream,” of five civilians held captive in the belly of a machine. His characters speak of a past in
which super computers were built in order to help fight World War Three. These computers
eventually became self-aware and, as in any robotic science fiction, took over the world.
Ellison’s tale is perhaps most unique in that he expresses a mutual hatred between man and
machine. At one point, the automaton describes his hatred for the main character:
Let me tell you how much I’ve come to hate you since I began to live. There are 387.44
million miles of printed circuits in wafer thin layers that fill my complex. If the word hate
was engraved on each nanoangstrom of those hundreds of millions of miles it would not
equal one one-billionth of the hate I feel for humans at this micro-instant for you. Hate.
Hate (Ellison).
Cauthorn 4
Clearly these examples of creative works show the inner workings of many people in this time
period—that they are fearful of too much technology and that it could lead to disaster.
Modern Advancements in (and the Problem with) Artificial Intelligence
In today’s society, quite the opposite is true. There are indeed premises for films and
novels involving extreme robotic environments. Two examples are The Matrix and I, Robot.
Both films focus on a world in which intelligent machines control or are a part of regular society,
and end up taking their power too far, ultimately causing chaos for the main characters.
However, the difference in modern times is that we don’t recognize the advancement of
technology as a serious threat. We treat it in jest. There is, in fact, a general encouragement to
continue in this exponential technological growth.
Artificial intelligence can be defined as “the science and engineering of machines that act
intelligently” (Norving). From this definition, a new question is raised: what exactly is
“intelligent?” We generally reserve this term for any machine that performs genuinely human
tasks, such as facial recognition, driving, or conversation skills. One scientist, Hiroshi Ishiguro,
has come close to capturing this human essence with the invention of his “Geminoid” android.
Research with these geminoids, according to Ishiguro, is twofold: one side is the search for how,
logistically, to mimic the natural fluidity of human motion. The other is more cognitive—
portraying human presence. “Our goal,” he says, “is to realize an advanced robot close to
humankind, and at the same time, the quest for the basis of human nature” (Ishiguro). Ishiguro’s
Geminoid is leaps and bounds beyond Walter’s mechanized turtles, but is still a far cry from the
advanced beings from science fiction films of today.
Cauthorn 5
So what is the key to artificial intelligence? When programming a computer, the
programmer goes in knowing which task they’d like to make the machine complete (such as
picking up an object). The setback with artificial intelligence is programming a computer to
complete a given task when you’re not sure what the task is going to be. In order to be truly
“intelligent,” a machine must not only be able to perform a task, but “sense its environment and
then act on it, modifying and adjusting its own actions accordingly” (Norving).
Rodney Brooks, professor of robotics at MIT, came even closer than Ishiguro to
overcoming this scientific setback. In 2012, he introduced an industrial robot by the name of
Baxter. Baxter was created by Brooks’ company, Rethink Robotics, as a machine intended to
help factory workers with simple tasks such as loading, unloading, and general handling of
materials. The following year, Brooks presented Baxter at a Ted Talk Conference. He claimed
that society does indeed rely on robots, but we can make them work for us (TED). Baxter is,
unarguably, a remarkable invention, and Brooks and his team deserve to be commended.
However, there are flaws in his proposition. Baxter, however helpful to a human, can still take
over a human’s job. Once a human has trained Baxter, he can repeat this task a hundred times
over, without tiring or malfunctioning. In Brooks’ presentation, he introduces the audience to
Mildred, an aging factory worker in Connecticut who works with a Baxter robot. Brooks uses her
as an example of how the older generation can continue to work by having Baxter help them
(TED). Yet what happens when Mildred retires? Mildred will be gone, but Baxter will remain.
The company may realize that the job is still capable of being accomplished even though the
employee is gone. What reason is there to hire another employee? A “worker” such as Baxter
doesn’t require salary, benefits, breaks, or holidays; Baxter won’t get into arguments with coworkers, or talk back to the boss. It is in this way that machines can slowly begin to control our
Cauthorn 6
job market. Despite this threat, the average person on the street, if asked, “Is technology a danger
to the security of our nation” would most likely furrow his/her brow and wonder what kind of
question that is. The modern day homo sapien adores technology, and desperately craves more of
it. Technology, in our day-and-age, has a relatively positive connotation. Some feel that it can
become an addiction, but for the most part, we welcome any new “gizmo” that can better our
everyday lives. If offered a Baxter, or a machine like it, most of us would gladly take the
opportunity to have a robot do our work for us. We would hardly notice the fact that we can go
home, kick back, and relax, while a machine carries on with our job in our place. We would
hardly notice…until it was too late.
Lawrence Katz, an economist at Harvard, studies the patterns throughout history of the
effects of technological advances on job creation and loss. His stance is that, although change in
career can be difficult for a worker (such as that which we saw during the Industrial Revolution
with the agriculture industry), the introduction of new technology has never caused a serious
dent in the job market for an extended period of time. The turnaround is never immediate, of
course; decades can pass before workers are able to find new means of income, but, Katz says,
“We never have run out of jobs. There is no long-term trend of eliminating work for people.
Over the long term, employment rates are fairly stable. People have always been able to create
new jobs. People come up with new things to do.” However, Katz never completely denies the
possibility of the story playing out differently for the modern era. With today’s advancements in
technology, there is a larger variety of jobs that can be taken over (not just agricultural, for
example). Katz expects the pattern he has observed to continue, but he thinks it to be a legitimate
question. He says, “If technology disrupts enough, who knows what will happen?” (Rotman).
Cauthorn 7
Many industries have felt, first-hand, the increase in technology in our society.
Technological revolution is causing dynamic change, particularly in the areas of business and
postal service. Clerical work, such as secretaries and file clerks, is no longer in demand due to
innovations such as word processing, voicemail, and the internet. According to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS), data entry workers and word processors and typists in the United States
alone are projected to lose a combined total of 29,100 jobs by 2020 (Lockard, 102).
In 1997, an episode of the hit comedy Seinfeld aired in which Kramer decides he no
longer needs to receive his physical mail. He confronts his friend, Newman (a postal worker)
about the issue. Newman contests his request by asking “What about your cards and letters?”
Kramer responds: “E-mail, telephones, fax machines. FedEx, telex, telegrams, holograms” (“The
Junk Mail”). The writers included these lines to procure laughter from their viewers, but the
problem discussed in the episode is a legitimate fear for the postal industry. The BLS estimates
that postal service employment will decline by 30% by the year 2022 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics).
The rate of technological creation since around the American census in 1890, according
to director of engineering at Google, Ray Kurzweil, has been exponential. He has done studies
on MIPS (Million Instructions Per Second) per dollar, which is the unit used to determine the
value of computers. He has found “an incredibly smooth doubly-exponential rise” in MIPS per
dollar which hasn’t been impacted by any event in human history—not even the most tragic
events in our history such as the World Wars, the Cold War, or the Great Depression (“Merging
with the Machines”). This exponential growth, combined with the decline in certain industries,
can only lead to an economic collapse over time. One could argue that those whose job it is to
create the technology would remain employed; however, these are careers which require years of
Cauthorn 8
expensive higher education and training. Only the wealthier class could afford such schooling.
Add this to the job loss of those who are less wealthy, and, over time, we could see a
disappearance of the middle class. Democracy Journal says that the American middle class “is
the source of economic growth” (Madland). The middle class is the glue which keeps our
economy functioning and growing. If those working in the middle class lose their jobs to
machinery, the middle class will weaken and the gap between the rich and the poor will expand,
causing a total financial breakdown.
How Can This Be Prevented?
There is, presently, no government agency in charge of technological regulation. The
American Bar Association has instituted an Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (AI/R)
Committee (Dennison), but its only jurisdiction seems to be over the monitoring of drones.
Drones are important to keep an eye on, but the name suggests that technology regulation in the
workplace would fit in nicely with the committee. This is not a proposition to put a stop to
innovation and invention (as this would surely cause riots), but rather a strong suggestion to put
tighter regulations (or at least some regulations) on the amount of technology allowed in the
workplace; and, furthermore, to have councils such as the AI/R Committee discuss the possible
economical outcomes before installing a certain machine in a place of work.
According to a CNN article on the future of our job market:
The key to navigating this evolving jobs market is to follow the premise of
Darwin's own theory of evolution and be as versatile and adaptable as possible while
career paths are naturally selected to align with the changing surroundings…By
monitoring and understanding the major trends that are affecting our global economy, our
businesses and our lives, savvy industry watchers are able to shape their skill set and
career in line with the key influences driving long-term opportunities (Townsend).
Cauthorn 9
Forbes contributor, Greg Satell suggests a few strategies for keeping up with the newfound
competition of machinery. Instead of being hired for ability to perform certain tasks, he says, it is
more favorable to be able to solve problems. He uses the example of travel agents: a travel agent
is no longer responsible for booking flights (This can be accomplished using any computer), but
rather, planning a dream vacation for the clients that the client himself would have never thought
of. Another strategy which is sure to beat a computer, according to Satell, is acquiring the ability
to ask questions instead of answer them. Employers used to look for the most intelligent person
in the room for solutions to their business problems. Today, Satell says, “even a genius from 20
years ago can’t match a normal teenager today armed with a smartphone.” Humans are no match
for today’s technology. However, today’s technology is only good at answering questions, not
asking them. Humans can find an advantage in the workplace by choosing insightful problems to
pursue (Satell).
Therefore, perhaps the best method of prevention is simply awareness. If we, as a
technologically advanced society, don’t pay attention to the growing presence of technology, the
rug could be pulled out from under us. Ray Kurzweil stresses, “It’s important to understand that,
due to exponential growth, as powerful as computers are today, they will be a billion times more
powerful…in 25 years…and it will be a very different era” (“Merging with the Machines”). The
world around us is changing, and even if humanity ceases, machinery carries on. Ray Bradbury’s
short story, “August 2026: There Will Come Soft Rains” features a “smart house” that continues
with its basic tasks (making breakfast, cleaning the house, reading poetry to the homeowner at
night, etc.) even though the residents have long disappeared due to some sort of instant
apocalyptic death (Bradbury). The fun little tech toys that we obsess over today may someday be
Cauthorn 10
the sole force in our job market; furthermore, they may be all that remains of the human race
after we’re gone. McCorduck further explores how this fear might be necessary:
To agree that a machine can be intelligent is to open the door to one more Other [being]
and share our identity a bit further. We make this opening in terror and exhilaration—
how much must we give up of ourselves? … We cede some of the power…we suppose
we have; we look at a thing that used to be shackled and see it now as free (McCorduck
198).
This is a natural fear which needs to be embraced in order to avoid a takeover by machines
created by our very hands.
Cauthorn 11
Works Cited
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 201415 Edition, Postal Service Workers. 8 Jan. 2014. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.
Bradbury, Ray. “August 2026: There Will Come Soft Rains.” Elizabeth Skadden. N.p., n.d. Web.
23 Nov. 2014.
Brown, Gregory. “The Industrial Revolution and ‘The Social Question.’ UNLV Department of
History. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Dir. Tim Burton. Perf. Johnny Depp. Warner Bros., 2005.
Film.
Dennison, Timothy. “Section of Science & Technology Law: Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
Committee.” American Bar Association, n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.
Desk Set. Dir. Walter Lang. Perf. Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. Twentieth Century
Fox, 1957. Film.
Ellison, Harlan. “I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream.” Index and News - Hermiene.net. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
I, Robot. Dir. Alex Proyas. Perf. Will Smith. Twentieth Century Fox, 2004. Film.
Ishiguro, Hiroshi. “Geminoid Overview.” Geminoid. N.p., n.d. 23 Nov. 2014.
“The Junk Mail.” Seinfeld: Season 9. Writ. Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Dir. Andy
Ackerman. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2007. DVD.
Cauthorn 12
Lockard, Brett C., and Michael Wolf. “Occupational employment projections to 2020.” US
Department of Labor Monthly Labor Review (2012): 84-108. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.
Madland, David. “Growth and the Middle Class.” Democracy Journal (2011): n.p. Web. 23 Nov.
2014.
The Matrix. Dir. Andy Wachowski. Perf. Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, and Carrie-Anne
Moss. Warner Bros., 1999. Film.
McCorduck, Pamela. Machines Who Think. Toronto: A K Peters, Ltd., 2004. Print.
"Merging with the Machines: Information Technology, Artificial Intelligence, And The Law Of
Exponential Growth." World Future Review (World Future Society) 2.1 (2010): 61-66.
Web. 22 Nov. 2014.
Norving, Peter. “Artificial Intelligence.” New Scientist 3 Nov. 2012. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.
Rotman, David. “How Technology is Destroying Jobs.” MIT Technology Review. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 12 June 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
TED. “Rodney Brooks: Why We Will Rely on Robots.” Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube,
28 June 2013. Web. 20 November 2014.
Townsend, Alan. “Dying careers and thriving careers: The jobs of tomorrow.” CNN Opinion.
CNN, 13 August 2012. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.
Satell, Greg. “If You Want to Avoid Being Replaced by a Robot, Here’s What You Need to
Know.” Forbes Magazine. 7 March 2014: n.p. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.