8 replies to this topic

[brokenportal]

Imagine that there is a fully functioning robot that can do just about everything, like Data from Star Trek lets say, with any variations on it that you want. It can learn and upgrade and do all kinds of amazing things. It just kind of lives out in society on its own, helping with society in general, working at a warehouse moving products and in a DuPont think tank helping to push out new good innovation, not causing any destruction.

Can somebody explain a scenario to me where it would make sense to let that robot rust into disrepair, or to smash it in a garbage compactor and throw it into a dump, or bury it in the dirt?

[corb]

Can somebody explain a scenario to me where it would make sense to let that robot rust into disrepair, or to smash it in a garbage compactor and throw it into a dump, or bury it in the dirt?

You answered your own question with this :

or bury it in the dirt?

We already do this to people don't we.

The scenario is this - the robot dies. Hardware breaks just like human organs do - a massive electric failure fries it's cpu - this translates to massive brain hemorrhage in a human, no need to preserve a human if his brain is gone, right ? Same with the robot.

[brokenportal]

To let it rust into a state of disrepair, is what I mean, or while it is still functioning, to take and smash it in a garbage compactor or bury it in the dirt.

Data, lets say, is functioning on and on for 100, then 500, then 2,000 then 10,000 years. He keeps upgrading, he keeps learning and adapting. Is there any scenario you can come up with where you think it could make sense to say, "Well, lets allow x, y and z which would lead to it rusting into disrepair" or alternatively, to take the functioning robot and put it into a garbage compactor or bury it in the dirt?

[Droplet]

It's a very good way to put it and no, I can't see any sensible reason to do what you just said.

Corb also made a good analogy that is sadly how society currently thinks.

Edited by Droplet, 24 January 2012 - 06:53 AM.

[corb]

Data, lets say, is functioning on and on for 100, then 500, then 2,000 then 10,000 years. He keeps upgrading, he keeps learning and adapting. Is there any scenario you can come up with where you think it could make sense to say, "Well, lets allow x, y and z which would lead to it rusting into disrepair" or alternatively, to take the functioning robot and put it into a garbage compactor or bury it in the dirt?

I can.
Since a robot of that intelligence is however you look at it - a human, then all the reasons I would do to this to a human apply.
Murder, self defense, war.
Of course we can also imagine a scifi setting like Star Wars where robots are treated purely like tools and get their memory erased every month, but this case does not coincide with the way the crew of Enterprise treats Data.

[Arch_NME]

Well, two things. At some point the cost of maintenance could exceed the cost of a whole new robot. It may just not be the most efficient thing to do. Like a car that's in the shop so much you might as well be making payments on a new car. I think that's could also be the case with humans even once indefinite life extension becomes possible. It may cost a lot more money/resources or whatever to extend there life than say getting a newborn up to productive age. Second thing, a new better model may come out. Something that just is better than your old robot. It's faster, stronger, more intelligent, learns better. I know you said you could upgrade him but again the cost to upgrade might be exceed the cost of the new model or the upgrades might be so extensive and require replacing so much hardware that he would essentially be a whole different robot anyway. Kind of like "upgrading" you computer with a new motherboard, it's not really the same computer anymore. It's really a new computer in your old case. One of the consequences of advances in biotech besides life extension will no doubt be the ability to just genetically engineer a better human. Why waste resources on you when we could be running a super athlete with the brain of Einstein with those same resources?

[brokenportal]

Interesting thoughts, but this robot is not destructive and it's autonomous. It provides its own upkeep. In the opener I said, "any variations on it that you want". I was afraid that might lead people to believe that I mean its their robot, Im just asking you to imagine whatever kind of gadgets and functions on it that you think are conceivable, but that it is an autonomous robot existing on its own. As stated it is also "not causing any destruction".

Its an autonomous productive robot that self repairs and upgrades and minds its own business as it helps to progress in general.

[Arch_NME]

Interesting thoughts, but this robot is not destructive and it's autonomous. It provides its own upkeep. In the opener I said, "any variations on it that you want". I was afraid that might lead people to believe that I mean its their robot, Im just asking you to imagine whatever kind of gadgets and functions on it that you think are conceivable, but that it is an autonomous robot existing on its own. As stated it is also "not causing any destruction".

Its an autonomous productive robot that self repairs and upgrades and minds its own business as it helps to progress in general.

The robot still uses resources: energy, material, etc. Society as a whole may have a better use for those resources. That's doesn't necessarily mean someone else making that decision from on high either. He could simply be priced out of the market as the more productive newer robots all around him cause a sort of inflation. He simply may not be able to compete with them for resources efficiently enough to continue the cost of his own upkeep.

[brokenportal]

Hmm, I think that might be an answer to that. Any others besides that one?