Steve Wozniak on Robotics and AI

Okay, so I may be beating a dead horse with this one today, but sometimes it’s worth it just to drive home a point…

Earlier this week, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak stepped into the artificial intelligence fray alongside Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking to warn us all once again about the impending doom and ultimate self-extinction of humanity (a very cheerful topic, I know).

This technophobia is, of course, nothing new, but the concern becomes that much more legitimate whenever a high-profile tech dude like Steve speaks up about it.

Here’s what the Woz had to say:

Like people including Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk have predicted, I agree that the future is scary and very bad for people. If we build these devices to take care of everything for us, eventually they’ll think faster than us and they’ll get rid of the slow humans to run companies more efficiently.

Steve went on to add:

Will we be the gods? Will we be the family pets? Or will we be ants that get stepped on? I don’t know about that… But when I got that thinking in my head about if I’m going to be treated in the future as a pet to these smart machines… well I’m going to treat my own pet dog really nice.

Now as much as I hate to think the only thing keeping Woz from abusing his dog is the fear of reciprocation from our future robot overlords, the man does raise a very interesting question here. In fact, I think Steve’s “gods, pets, or ants?” rhetoric really hits the crux of the ongoing AI debate…

To be honest, I’ve heard compelling arguments from all three sides.

Those that think we’ll be gods are keen to point out that a computer can only do what we program it to do. Sure, modern AI may be capable of beating humans at chess or Jeopardy, but when it comes down to it, are these programs even aware of their victory? Of course not: They’re just doing what they’re told.

Those that think we’ll end up as pets will tell you that so long as we program robots in our own image, they’ll have the same emotional desires and moral values (or at least they’ll behave like it) as we do.

If we build machines that seek out positive social interaction and approval from humans, then that’s exactly what they’ll do. In the end, it’s not much different than the way we seek affection from dogs, cats, and even each other.

As for those that think we’ll end up being crushed like bugs… the argument is pretty simple: Robots will move faster, think faster, and eventually learn faster than we do. Once that happens, it’s pretty much game over.

Now, personally, I believe all three of these things will happen eventually (the first has already), and in the exact order listed above.

As it stands, we’re currently in stage one of this process. That is, humans are wielding machines in truly god-like ways and actually have been for quite some time.

Just imagine living a thousand years ago and learning about a life form that could travel to other planets, pick off his enemies from a mile away, print food, harness energy from the wind and sun, contact anyone in the world in an instant, turn human waste into drinkable water, and cure countless medical ailments.

Surely, anyone would have thought that to be the description of a god a thousand years ago, but today we take these powers for granted. Ultimately, it’s all about perspective.

But when you really think back to our humble roots, there’s no question we’ve harnessed technology to become the quasi-gods of our respective domain.

As for stage two (becoming pets), I’m on board with the idea but would prefer to use the term “symbiotic relationship.” The word “pet” insinuates dominance of one party over the other, when in reality that’s not necessarily the case.

You may think, for instance, that you own your dog or cat, but chances are they feel the same way about you. After all, we provide our pets with food and shelter; we clean up their waste; we take care of their medical bills — you get the idea. Again, it’s about perspective.

When you look at it this way, being a robot’s pet actually seems pretty appealing. You’re telling me I get to lounge around all day while my breadwinning robot does all the work? Well, count me in!

Eventually, though, someone somewhere is going design a machine that is self-aware and self-serving. Sure, computers can only do what we program them to do, but that doesn’t mean they’ll never be able to learn, feel, or think like we can.

Anyone with a basic understanding of human biology can grasp the idea that at our cores, we ourselves are programmed. We emerge from a specific genetic code, we act according to binary instructions (neurons either firing or not firing), and we rely on the same basic “if-then” logic structure as any other piece of software.

It should go without saying, then, that if humans can be self-aware, then a robot will eventually be able to be as well. Likewise, if a human can be greedy, gluttonous, prideful, etc., then so can a machine if programmed that way.

Ultimately it comes down understanding the human brain and mimicking its processes through a machine. And unless you believe in magic, you know that our thoughts, emotions, and even our perception of conscious will are all rooted in physical happenings — which, by nature, can be engineered.

Now, I don’t mean to get all “Whoa, dude!” on you guys, but the reality is that our perception of the world is just that — a perception. In other words, it doesn’t really exist anywhere outside your mind — so the only person that can truly confirm your conscious will is you (everyone else has to take it on faith).

This is exactly what Descartes meant by “I think, therefore I am.” I bring this up because at some point in the future, there will be a critical turning point in how we perceive AI.

Eventually, a robot will be programmed to think and, consequently, will insist that it is real. When this happens, we will be forced to answer, either by accepting the reality of its existence or by denying our own.

Either way, the robots are going to win.

Until next time,

Jason Stutman

Check us out on YouTube!