TED Talk-Prompted Discussion: Bug Bots

Today’s TED Talk for discussion is one NASA Chief Bioethicist Paul Wolpe gave back in November of 2010 on “bio-engineering.”  This was one of the first TED talks I saw that sparked my interest in emerging technology ethics, and, despite the amount of time that has passed since then, I think most people are still unaware of some of the technologies he discusses.  He talks about several developments, others of which I plan to cover in future posts, for now I want to talk about just one: “bug bots.”

What are bug bots?  In a nutshell, as Wolpe describes in the TED talk, we have the ability to wire computer ships into the brains of insects, which we can use to control their movements.  They are essentially organic robots.  We can do it with cockroaches, goliath beetles, moths, and even rats.  One of the more obvious applications would be the ability to attach cameras and use these animals as living, incognito drones. 

First, I want to talk about the principle of the dominion mandate.  We are called to use the earth’s resources to good ends, and technology is one way in which we do this.  Further, we use technology to counteract undesirable yet natural phenomena, whether it is our exposure to the elements, or disease.  The ethical issues of emerging technologies we are discussing in this blog all ask a fundamental question: at what point have we taken the dominion mandate too far?  At what point, if any, does violating an animal’s autonomy become a bad thing?  Wolpe’s TED talk suggests that that this technology crosses the line.  So far, it seems to me that to the extent that we can arrive at some answer, those answers are on a case-by-case basis (think back to Michael Sandell’s article on genetic engineering humans).  As we examine these possible answers, we should be looking for the principled theme that drives all of them.

I also want to talk about some practical issues I envision arising as this technology becomes more prevalent.  The first is very reminiscent of the privacy issues that drones create today.  We wrestle with how much freedom the operators of drones ought to have when it comes to using cameras that record people’s everyday lives.  But a drone looks like a drone.  A moth with a micro camera and a computer ship impeded in its brain does not.  Another issue I can think of is admittedly more speculative (Wolpe’s TED Talk doesn’t give an implication either way), but I feel like we should be talking about it, just in case it becomes reality.  If this technology continues to improve, and we are already capable of doing this in mammals, will be we able to one day to it with humans?  If so, what might that look like, and what guidelines should we set, if not prohibiting it completely?  What implications does removing human autonomy have, not just from a standpoint of Christian ethics, but existentialist ethics as well?  What happens when we reduce a human being to just another organic robot?

When Emerging Technologies Affect the Human Psyche: Virtual Reality

The consumer release of the Oculus Rift headset presents us with an opportunity to talk about virtual reality.  This is something that I personally am very much looking forward to—trying out a first-person shooter VR video game is definitely on my bucket list.  But as with all emerging technologies, the new wave of VR presents us with opportunities for good use and abuse.

Let me first acknowledge that VR headsets have potential for many good uses.  They could be used train pilots and surgeons and treat phobias and PTSD. They could also possibly be attached to bicycle machines at gyms for a more entertaining work-out experience, perhaps giving some people that extra incentive to work on the cardio.  And as with video games, there is a proper place for their entertainment value.

We should also be aware, however, of the potential concerns with commercialized VR headsets as they become cheaper, more advanced, and more widespread.  We can look at past examples to get some idea of what we might face.  Second Life is a kind of online virtual reality game created in 2003 in which players create avatars of themselves and interact with other players in ways that mimic the real world, for example, via social events or economic exchanges.  As one might expect, there have been players who have become addicted to the game, prioritizing time playing on Second Life at the expense of their real life in the real world.

I would not be surprised if similar applications become available on VR headsets.  And again, while such games may not be bad in and of themselves, we ought to remind people that human flourishing can only truly take place in the real world, and that neglecting the real world can have negative consequences.

I came across a short film about VR that admittedly may seem a little too dystopian to count as an actual warning.  I do think, however, it depicts the idea that while not everyone will become addicted to VR, those that do, and the problems they face because of it, still matter. 

When Emerging Technologies Affect the Human Psyche: Weapons of War

Emerging technologies change how we relate to the realities of the world, and to each other.  Technology in warfare is no different.  Whether it was the cannon, the machine gun, or the nuclear bomb, the change expanded the horizon of our capabilities.  And since war is a human activity, the way we interact with these newfound capabilities, on a mental, emotional, and even physical level, affects its trajectory and outcomes. In a TED talk, military analyst P.W. Singer tells a story about an American explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) team in Iraq on a mission to diffuse an improvised explosive device (IED).  When one member of the team got close enough to the bomb to begin to attempt to diffuse it, it exploded.  But the story ended with a twist:  that team member was not a human soldier, but a robot.  No condolence letter needed to be written to any family members.

When talking about emerging technologies in warfare, whether they be drones in the sky or robots on the ground, we are dealing with two aspects of human nature that, in the context of war, must be carefully balanced.  On the one hand, we want to preserve our lives, and the lives of others.  On the other hand, drone technology that is now used to that end has psychological consequences that affect behavior.  Singer said something that surprised me:  drone pilots who operated drones that fly in Iraq from bases on U.S. soil had higher rates of PTSD than units who were overseas.  There is a dichotomy of two experiences with virtually no transition between them: pilots will go to shifts, then go home for the night.  A pilot can fire rockets at real people and then be with their family a few hours later.  War became an experience not much different from other lines of work.  And then, of course, there is the classic question of whether or not it is easier to make rash decisions when one is disconnected from the violence on the ground.

There are other kinds of emergent technologies that could be weaponized in the near future when applied to robotics.  Ahead of the release of Batman v. Superman, the Film Theorists YouTube channel highlighted a method by which Batman could beat Superman without the use of Kryptonite:  scientists at UC Berkeley created robotic muscle fibers that are a thousand times stronger than human muscles.  My question is, how might this change the psychology of war if we begin to use this technology in robots on a regular basis?  Presumably, there is great potential in its use in rescue operations, and so forth.  But if we use our technology as an extension of our capabilities, to what other uses might we investigate?

This stuff might seem more distant from our daily lives, but there are real policy impacts to examine.  What do you think?  How ought we to approach emerging technologies in warfare going forward?

Three Common Themes in Sci-Fi

Science-Fiction stories can be entertaining, but they also can tell us a lot about ourselves.  Here are three themes often show up in science-fiction stories.  Click on the link to read more about how they relate to being human.  Also, tell me if you think I am missing something crucial.

1)   Space Exploration

There’s something exciting about travelling at warp speed in the U.S.S. Enterprise, traveling to Jupiter aboard the Discovery One, travelling through the wormhole in the Endurance, or experiencing the beauty of Pandora.

2)   Artificial Intelligence

“I’m sorry, Dave.  I’m afraid I can’t do that.”  The classic line epitomizes our fear of A.I.-gone-crazy.

3)   Playing God

Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is known as “The Modern Prometheus,” and today we continue to tell modern Frankenstein tales.  At what point does human artifice cross the line?

Playing God or Playing Creation?

Christians recognize that God has given us a certain creative freedom with creation.  We take natural resources and build things out of them.  The entire world reflects what good and bad can come from that.  But every once in a while, science-fiction reminds us that such pursuits have consequences.

The Frankenstein archetype warns against “playing God,” against attempting to bring what seems to be encoded in nature as outside of our control into our control.  In struggling to equip ourselves with the ability to reach that point, we neglect to equip ourselves with the ability to handle the consequences.

One more modern rendition of this that comes to mind for me is Rise of the Planet of the Apes.  Scientists’ attempt to master just one aspect of the human genome leads to disastrous consequences for the entire planet.  So maybe the apocalypse is a bit of an extreme result to expect.  But parallels need not be literal.

I wrestle with this question.  I feel like modern medicine reflects the idea that God has given us the ability to harness our resources to promote human flourishing.  But when does it become “playing God”?  In an earlier post, I talked about Michael Sandel’s concerns regarding genetic engineering.  I wonder if his concerns provide an example of a framework for distinguishing between the two.  But even that involves nailing down the essentials of human nature.  I dealt with that in my first post, but I can’t claim that list as definitive or exhaustive.

What Stories Tell Us about Artificial Intelligence

Sometimes I wonder if our fear of A.I. is based more on science or on what we tell ourselves about it.  HAL 9000, Ultron, Aria, and Skynet have painted a picture for us that depicts one inevitable outcome: A.I. goes crazy and tries to kill us all.  But there is another side to the coin.  Tars, in Interstellar, and the computer in Star Trek, never pose any danger.  So which depiction is right?

There are really two questions we face with A.I.  First, how much can a computer mimic a human being?  Second, what kind of human being will it imitate?  I’m no A.I. expert, but it seems like we’re dealing with the mechanisms for imitation.  Just today, a story came out about how Microsoft’s A.I. chat bot started mimicking racist and anti-Semitic language on Twitter, presumably because it encountered it from others. 

The question becomes:  can we come up with an algorithm that mimics a kind of moral discernment, one that says “this kind of sentiment is bad; avoid imitating it”?  Will such an algorithm be enough?  If moral discernment is where the line is drawn between an A.I., no matter how advanced, and a human being, then perhaps we should heed warnings like that of Stephen Hawking.

What “The Final Frontier” Means

Human beings have always been explorers.  History is full of examples of peoples moving from one place to another, often facing perilous risk in the process.  The motivations are eclectic:  prestige, money, mission, curiosity, freedom, or the thrill.

Now that each continent has been explored, we have two options: the ocean, or space.  I will admit, I share the perplexity of those who wonder why we are not exploring the ocean more.  That aside, “the final frontier” allures because humans are explorers.  The frontier represented the call of the unknown.  But unlike land on earth as we perceive it today, space is vast.  The potential is nearly endless.  NASA and SpaceX will find plenty of thrill seekers to volunteer to go to Mars.  But others see potential for scientific discovery, the benefits of which could surpass what came from the space race.

Of course, whatever we do, we should do it with a degree of caution.  The expeditions of history posed not just logistical questions but ethical ones as well.  We will face a new set of those questions when we finally travel beyond the moon.