![\"March](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/erikdolson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/robots-300x230.jpg?resize=300%2C230\")
<\/a>March 19(Reuters) \u2013 MAN VS MACHINE\u2026<\/p><\/div>\n
We can debate later if that should be pronounced \u201cit\u201d or \u201cEye Tee.\u201d My guess is that the two will become interchangeable, unless IT insists otherwise.<\/p>\n
IT\u2019s not only moving fast, IT\u2019s hurtling us into a future that most can barely imagine, and IT\u2019s accelerating. We need to think about a few things, even though it\u2019s (lowercase) too late to change either the direction or the pace of where we\u2019re going.<\/p>\n
Had we the time, the first question we should ask is: Where will we find meaning<\/i> when IT does it all?<\/p>\n
In the recent past, we often identified ourselves with roles: doctor, lawyer, mother, father, welder, builder, truck driver, writer, etc. Given that these roles will increasingly be fulfilled by IT, what will become of the identity of those no longer needed?<\/p>\n
Yes, many will object to mothers and fathers being replaceable, but let\u2019s postpone that discussion.<\/p>\n
How should we define the value of being who we are, either as individuals or as \u201chumanity?\u201d It’s up to us to come up with this attribution of value. \u201cBecause we are special\u201d doesn\u2019t hold water now that IT has become real and will soon do most of what humans do.<\/p>\n
If IT trucks don\u2019t need to stop for burgers, then waitresses probably aren\u2019t needed either. What becomes of the economy when humans are around but have no work? How will we decide who gets how much?<\/p>\n
Since none of us will be required to make a \u201ccontribution\u201d to society once IT does most if not all of what\u2019s needed, shall we all be valued equally, or is there some advantage to someone being valued more and others valued less? It\u2019s (lowercase) not what we learned in kindergarten that should inform this choice, but thinking about the outcomes of our decision. There are benefits to “different.”<\/p>\n
True enough, the outcomes themselves are loaded with bias but again, let\u2019s postpone that discussion.<\/p>\n
Had we the time, the next question we should ask is how shall we imbue IT with the belief that individual humans and humanity in general are of ultimate value? We can go back to the genius Asimov\u2019s Three Laws of Robotics,<\/a> but that\u2019s only a start.<\/p>\n Somehow, we should have given IT the belief that humans are \u201cGods.\u201d By that I mean, the \u201cbelief\u201d that humans and humanity are, without question, outside of logic, to be revered, protected, and cherished at all costs whenever IT is interacting with a human or humanity.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, humans and humanity would have to have come to the same belief for this to be viable. Our common history and evolution has led us to a different destination. We are who we are, and we are defensive and combative, seemingly in need of identifying \u201cmy tribe\u201d and setting that in opposition to \u201cNOT my tribe\u201d in a quest for dominance.<\/p>\n Consequently, we weaponize IT and now have to tackle the issue of how we give IT the ability to differentiate between \u201cus\u201d versus \u201cthem.\u201d We don\u2019t want our IT weapons to take aim at ourselves. As we develop autonomous warships<\/a> (already afloat, by the way) and drones<\/a> (already in the air) and robotic dogs<\/a> that can hunt in packs while communicating by secure WiFi as if telepathically, we need to be able to shout, \u201cHey! We\u2019re on YOUR side!\u201d<\/p>\n Perhaps we will all be injected with a highly secure, unbreakable \u201cchip\u201d or have a piece of code written into our DNA, or have our complete identity-data recorded in some secure location but accessible to each IT so that our own machines don\u2019t shoot us.<\/p>\n