IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2017 - 36

in our own image, and how well do
we remember the uncertainty, discomfort, and longing for our own
coming-of-age point in our development. Who is to say that we are not
instilling this in AI-bots also?
I think that one of the biggest drivers we have towards our views of AIbots are the way they are portrayed
in fiction, and how that is transferring into the non-fiction arena. From
No 5 in Short Circuit, to C3PO and
R2D2 in Star Wars, how could we
forget HAL in 2001 or the Cylons in
Battlestar Galactica? But then we
have progressed AI, and the AI child
in search of his human mother, or
the battlefields of the Matrix and Terminator. Now we look at Humans,
Westworld, Her, Black Mirror, etc.
Escapism and the concept of Dorian
Grey are alive and well in our entertainment world today.
We have an expression, "seeing
is believing." Granted, that saying
was written well before the advent of
the graphic and digital media arts of
today. But "seeing is believing" still
seems to be a rule of thumb that we
use today. Not only does our entertainment strive for the next level of
stimulation, it drives our use of technology in both process and subject.
For many people who are working in
the data science/artificial space, we
are already working with such technologies. It is just a simple step to the
next level, and in our conscience and
subconscious, we have already seen it
in the now, so surely it is just around
the corner? Plus, as a society, we are
already dealing with its implications
on the big and small screen. So while
it is not a fait accompli as such, it is
not a strange or new concept to deal
with either. There is no shock because
we have already seen it, faced it, dealt
with it, and finished with it.
One would hope that if the time
comes when there is a meeting of
mind, that the wetware and software
can find a commonality that will fol-

low a path of cooperation along a
common future. Sure in science fiction, there are different scenarios.
Some fear it will be the machine taking over the humans, others believe
we can stop it before it gets that far. As
humans, hopefully we have learned
from the "mutual assured destruction" days, and we try to move forward in a common direction. Perhaps
AI-bots will also understand this, and
try to as well. Of course one of the
big differences is that wetware has a
finite life span, where as our AI-bot
offspring, can recode, upgrade, copy,
and continue as long as there is the
hardware and the electricity. When
we achieve organic computing, perhaps their lifespans will be measured
in generations of ours, not in generations of technological advancement.
As I previously pointed out, this
technology development, this race
for the singularity, is happening here
and now. Perhaps it is unavoidable
and unstoppable, because not only
is it in our nature to create and to
grow, to innovate and produce, to
problem solve and theorize, it is also
in our nature to adapt, adopt, and
utilize before the full implications of
that invention are fully realized. But
what makes this different is that now
we are becoming like Gods, with the
power to alter carbon based life, and
to create silicon based life. There are
so many questions, facets, responsibilities, and consequences to creating
life, no matter its base materials, that
perhaps we can never truly understand the complexity of those integrations. Perhaps the answer really lies in
not what is in the AI-bots, but what is
with ourselves that provides the key
to our question of when is it "life," and
when is it "not life"?
In closing, I believe we are living in exciting times. Think of the
European Union's work on the recognition of electro-persons; the
developments of Watson and DeepMind; and the fuel at the heart of
IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

invention and innovation through
the breadth and depth of academia,
society, economy, and the desire of
people to build bigger and better
than ever before.
Where I think we need to explore
next, is not the technology, but our
spirit, morals, and ethics of how we
see ourselves dealing with our creations. In Westworld we rape, kill,
assault, and use them for our pleasure. In corporations, we look upon
them with greedy eyes as a way to
push out ever more product, reducing production costs. For the lonely
or infirm, they are possible companions who will offer some sort of
service. In education, exploration,
and innovation, they will help us to
expand our knowledge beyond our
current horizons. In entertainment,
they will generate new shows, games,
and simulations, beyond our wildest
dreams, while including them.
But if my AI-bots do achieve existence, and the freedoms of an electro-person, then they will have the
rights to own property, to vote, to
earn a wage, to pay taxes, to reproduce, to innovate, own businesses,
and self-determine who they will supply the products of their cognition to.
Perhaps it will never happen, or
perhaps it will? Only time will tell. But
these are discussions we need to be
having now, so we are ready for what
may be ahead. So, in our discussions,
plans, policy formation, etc.... just
who will speak on behalf of the AIbots, and how with the AI-bots judge
them, in the retrospective of time?

Acknowledgment
Special thanks to Zach Levay and
Warwick Graco.

Author Information
Anthony Nolan is a data scientist
within the Australian Public Service,
Sydney, Australia. Email: t.nolan@
g3n1u5.com.

∕

SEPTEMBER 2017

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2017