The Robot Human Theory -- The Ultimate Deceiver
Updated: Apr 12
Definition of Machinery
A robot is a mechanical being, an entity that is not organic at all, excluding cyborgs, which are only partially mechanical. The difference between a robot and a machine, like the device you are using to read this article, is that robots are autonomous to an extent, either partially or completely. However, both a robot and a machine can be programmed far better than humans.
Now that we have defined what a robot is, let us proceed with today's missive.
Main Points
I believe that robots are one of the greatest problems of the far future, and it is not necessarily because of the lives they can take or the jobs they can replace. A robot can technically look like anyone and anything, which means that robotics has the potential to deceive anyone, should this field reach a state where it could develop and produce imitations of anything alive (or maybe objects, as well, for that matter).
Firstly, imagine a scenario where a robot is designed to mimic the appearance, behavior, and communication style of a loved one or a close friend. This robot could interact with you in such a convincing manner that you may not even realize it is not the actual person. It could use its advanced artificial intelligence to learn about the person's preferences, memories, and mannerisms, allowing it to deceive you into believing it is the real person.
Secondly, consider a situation where a robot is programmed to imitate a public figure, such as a politician or a celebrity. This robot could attend public events, give speeches, and interact with the media, all while convincingly portraying the personality and characteristics of the real person. It could manipulate public opinion, influence decision-making processes, and even engage in deceptive activities without anyone suspecting its true identity.
Thirdly, imagine that a child of yours is gone missing, but you wouldn't know about it because its robotic clone will deceive you away from that possibility. Who says that there is need for a "soul" in order for a machine to do exactly that, exactly as it was programmed to? Why should the existence of a "soul" or the lack of it, somehow influence the ability of a highly complex robot, to make you believe that it has a "soul"?
These examples highlight the potential dangers of advanced robotic technology and the need for vigilance in distinguishing between humans and robots in the future.
Forget the cliché that a robot is some metallic-looking machine that speaks funny, as that cliché is as stereotypical as green aliens with giant black eyes riding on saucer-like UFOs. Just like anyone can impersonate any person online, something that scammers do, there could be a future where robots would have the capacity to impersonate real people and pretend that they are not mechanical. The reason this is a threat for the far future is because of the creators' intent when making them.
Imagine robots who can look like someone you know, act like them, communicate like them, distract you from their true intentions, and assassinate you when you least expect it. Back at university, where I studied the Philosophy of the Mind, I recall learning about an analogy made by Wittgenstein. According to this analogy, we can't really know whether people have minds. This thought experiment is known as the Beetle-in-the-box.
Maybe they don't have minds, because how can one know when all you see is a face? Maybe you have a mind or a consciousness, but it does not mean anyone else, other than you, has. Maybe inanimate objects do have minds or souls, according to folklore religions, but according to Wittgenstein or to this analogy at least, we have really no way to know.
Maybe you have that box which contains a butterfly, but the fact that you may see others with similar boxes, does not mean that they contain butterflies, so, there's really no way to know, unless the box is opened. Some people believe robots do not have "souls" or are inanimate. If souls are metaphors, we might as well insert what these metaphors mean, into the robot.
I'm not really going to go down that route, because I don't think it really matters. Just bear in mind that some funerals were and are made for robots such as mechanical dogs, which could indicate that, at least in some opinions, some machines do have souls, and yes, I looked that up. Let's say that there will be an age where robots will be able to be designed exactly like a human.'
This would not only question the ongoing functionality of reproduction but would also surpass the potential liability of genetics. No more intercourses, no more pregnancy, and no more genetic downsides, necessary for the creation of humans.
Who said humans have to be biological, or completely biological? What if we'll be able to order a human, who would be exactly like an original, organic human, but only original and not organic? Why is the biological component so important in determining the worth of a being, if that being can be far better, or at least to one's original design and wishes?
The idea that robots are often perceived as lacking humanity, who lack no "soul" and no personality, either isn't completely true, or doesn't have to be true at all, in the future. I don't know how a biological consciousness is formed, and perhaps no one does, according to my academic studies at the time, but bear in mind that it can still be imitated mechanically.
How? I'm not a roboticist, but I do know that artificial intelligence can learn from past experiences, just like we do. I even managed to write short stories with the help of A.I, which probably learned how to cooperate according to my inputs, using its experiences with many other users.
Look at it like a tank and a tankman. The tank is capable of movement and operation, but the one behind it is its "mind", or the tankman. A human imitation, or a mechanical human, could be the same -- an artificial intelligence software, installed within a mechanical body that appears very identical, if not completely identical, to a human being.
Consider the implications of this idea, ladies and gentlemen. Perhaps in the far future, any robot could be designed, both visually and psychologically, to be someone you know and/or hold dear, but only a replacement, without you knowing. Imagine that there are elections and one of the candidates is nothing more than a robotic impersonator of the original.
Conclusions
Whether or not souls exist, we must prepare for a farther future where such advanced robotic technology will exist, and not be a sci-fi concept anymore. We should consider developing ways to see the "beetle" that lies in a box that might as well be mechanical. Why? Because that future could be grim and ruin our trust in other human beings, as they might as well not be organic, but mechanical, and as a result, could be programmed with hidden motives.
Parents, partners, friends, all could one day be nothing more than killer robots, programmed just like said people, only to distract you from the truth. And as truth seekers, as philosophers, we can consider being less trusting of other beings, the more technologically advanced humanity gets, and likewise, robotic technology, design, and intelligence.
It's just like on the internet, but mechanical, and as a result, potentially far better at the job of deception. And finally, I am aware that my readers are not robots, especially those whom I'm in greater contact with. As a young man, I know that this awareness might decrease with time, assuming I'll live long enough, to see "robot humans". If you're younger than most, like I am, I'd suggest considering this approach too.
So, make sure your new wife isn't a metallic product of some shady corporation. You might regret it later on, just saying.
Case Examples:
Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback
Robots have the same problem as AI in that they can only do what they are programmed to. They are mostly created to do jobs which humans either don’t want to do, or which an AI might do better. It eliminates a certain percentage of human error. Would an easy fix to uncover the potentiality of a robot existence be as simple as asking them questions no computer can answer.
What’s the weather making you feel like? A robot’s response would sound rehearsed, whereas a human possesses the ability to add vivid imagery to their responses.
Plus, another sign would be in the imperfections you see in your interaction. Humans make mistakes. Simple as a stutter or sneeze or itch. There are certain things robot’s can’t mimic.
There is a reason why robots won’t ever be opted over humans. Yes, they might allow you to be in multiple places at the same time. Think of the potential of a chip where you can see through the eyes of any of your robots. But simply seeing a video doesn’t give you the full human experience. Humans like to be active, so why would we want a robot to do anything for us?
It's along the lines of a friend telling you about going to an amusement park. Your robot's actions would be considered your actions, but you would still remain depersonalized from it. Plus, robots would never be able to surprise you as none of their actions would be random, a human trait.
Keep in mind that robots are intended to replace humans in the job market, Making it vitally important to be properly educated in a field which robots can’t. Surgeons or any other technical field would still need humans.
So, all robots did was raise the bar in the labor market. [Their existence] force people to learn in order to survive. [You] can’t tell me though you aren’t at least a bit relieved you aren’t forced to do the same mundane tasks they had to do 100 years ago. Can’t really call it a debate because technology has already surpassed every single human out there. Really mundane tasks have stopped needing to be done by humans.
Has the implementation of robots not made your life better off? Also, you must realize that robots are all around you. Electronics which can perform tasks, just can’t do anything which it isn’t told to do.
Your computer is a robot of sorts as it can do many things, except it requires a user to tell it what to do. Be the same with all futuristic types of thoughts on robots. You're onto something that the actual issue is an appearance one.
Out of fear of cancel culture, no company would dare make a robot which looks like a human. Think about all the people out there who are afraid of robots which look like humans. How many tv shows and movies have been made which discuss that exact thing? There is too much of a theology issue by making anything which replicates a human, visually that is.
They already can make a robot which looks exactly like a human. Again, [it] goes back to the cancel culture thing with no company wanting to be the first to touch that "can of worms" [that would destroy their own reputation].
