The way I see it, there are two major aspects of humans that we try to reproduce through artificial intelligence: our mental capabilities and our physical functions. A computer that can play chess is one example of our attempts to artificially replicate the human brain. As a novice programmer, I can say without hesitation that programming chess is no easy task. Sure, you might be able to copy the code from a site online, but producing the algorithm that allows the robot to "think" ahead ten, twenty moves--it's absolutely insane. However, as impressive as a chess-playing robot is, there are other uses of artificial intelligence that may excite people. For example, wouldn't it be fascinating if a team of robots could coordinate to play against a human team or another team of robots in a game of soccer? Can you imagine how difficult the task would be? Although we often talk about artificial intelligence, we don't often talk about the absurd amount of detail and effort that goes into making it possible. Allow me to discuss some of the difficulties with this task. Focusing on the large scale, a team of robots would have to be coordinated. That means that they would have to be able to sense each other, the opposing team members, and the boundaries of the field. Setting the boundaries may be easy, but detecting the opposing team members would not (unless you used some kind of tracking device). With what sensors would they be detected? Light and distance (sound) sensors would be rather difficult given the sheer size of the soccer field. On top of the physical details that we have to account for in designing a soccer playing robot, there has to be a complex algorithm to teach the robot to actually play soccer. When does the robot know how to shoot? How would it dribble? How can robots predict the motion of other players? Would the team of robots communicate over a wireless network to coordinate, or would they work alone to work together? Out of curiosity, just as sports build bonds between players, could robotic soccer further narrow the gap between humans and technology? In some ways, a team of robots playing soccer is even more impressive than a chess-playing robot. But there are advances in technology toward making such a feat possible. In his TED Talk, Raffaello D'Andrea reminds all of us about the astounding potential of robots. I strongly suggest watching the video. Some of the actions that he has the quadcopters perform are absolutely insane, and he provides strong evidence that robots can replicate human behavior. You can watch D'Andrea's TED Talk here.
Written by Ray Bradbury, "The Veldt" (also known as "The World the Children Made") is a story about an automated house and its inhabitants, a family of four. The house does all the work; there is nothing for the parents and children to do except enjoy themselves. Except the parents aren't enjoying themselves. The nursery, a virtual reality room that changes according to the children's imaginations, is stuck on an African veldt setting, which worries the parents. In the end, the parents decide to shut down the house and go on vacation, but the children protest, asking to see the nursery one last time. The kids then trap their parents in the nursery, leaving the veldt's lions to devour the parents.
The general consensus on the story's message is that when technology replaces family bonds, things go awry. Because the children are closer to the nursery than they are to their actual parents, the house becomes the children's parents. As a result, when the actual parents try to shut down the nursery, the kids feel no remorse in eliminating them. Most readers view the story as a warning against advanced technology that has the potential to replace humans. However, there is another way to read this story. What if the parents were actually the antagonists, and the children and the nursery, which I will interpret as representative of the environment (albeit virtual), prevail as a force of good? It seems highly implausible, but some of the details support this theory. On the very first page, it is written, "This house which clothed and fed and rocked them to sleep and played and sang and was good to them." Already we get the impression that the house (and the nursery) is perfect and good. It provides everything for the family, yet the parents fail to appreciate its benevolent deeds. The parents disapprove of the house's most special feature, the nursery. Lydia Hadley, the mother, calls the animals inside "filthy creatures." Furthermore, the parents fear the nursery simply because they do not understand it. They do not know why the environment is stuck on the African setting, nor do they see what the lions are eating. This fear drives the parents to attempt to control this virtual ecosystem, as evidenced by George's words, "Come on, room! I demand Aladdin!" When this environment refuses to bend to his will, George decides to shut the nursery down. At this point in time, unfortunately, the nursery has already supplanted the parents as the children's mother and father. In an attempt to pry them from "nature's" grasp, the parents hurriedly plan a vacation to "civilize" the kids. The irony is evident; the technology-worshipping children are in this case uncivilized, and the old-fashioned parents are the civilized ones. The kids, being young and close to nature, recognize their parents' plan and oppose its realization. The nursery and its children ultimately prevail and prevent the Hadleys from controlling the environment. In this interpretation, because the nursery is a symbol for nature and the environment, "The Veldt" takes on a completely new meaning. Rather than a warning against technology, this becomes a story about human exploitation of nature. Click here to read "The Veldt"
