jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (05/06/88)
In article <31024@linus.UUCP> bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort) writes: >I was intrigued by David Sher's comments about "machine responsibility". > >It is not uncommon for a child to "spank" a machine which misbehaves. >But as adults, we know that when a machine fails to carry out its >function, it needs to be repaired or possibly redesigned. But we >do not punish the machine or incarcerate it. > The concept of a machine which could be productively punished is not totally unreasonable. It is, in fact, a useful property for some robots to have. Robots that operate in the real world need mechanisms that implement fear and pain to survive. Such machines will respond positively to punishment. I am working toward this end, am constructing suitable hardware and software, and expect to demonstrate such robots in about a year. John Nagle
bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) (05/09/88)
I was fascinated by John Nagle's rejoinder to my remarks about punishing a machine. John writes: > The concept of a machine which could be productively punished is >not totally unreasonable. It is, in fact, a useful property for some robots >to have. Robots that operate in the real world need mechanisms that implement >fear and pain to survive. Such machines will respond positively to punishment. > > I am working toward this end, am constructing suitable hardware and >software, and expect to demonstrate such robots in about a year. John's posting reminded me of the short story, "Soul of the Mark III Beast" which appears in _The Mind's I_. While I cannot dispute John's point that a game of engineered darwinism might produce a race of hardy robots, I must confess that I am troubled by the concept. Would not the survivors be liable to rising up against their creators in a titanic struggle for dominance and survival? Would we erect a new colliseum to enjoy the spectacle of intermachine warfare? Why am I both excited and horrified by the thought? --Barry Kort