Let's leap ahead a dozen years or so to the warm and fuzzy cozy scene above of a bachelorette and her child, which her busy business schedule and maternal whimsey can enjoy without guilt or misgivings of absent fathers or day care parental deprivation impacting a child's psyche. Imagine the child's really a surrogate child. Not just any surrogate child.
A gynoid child.
As they warmly gaze at another we have to ask; Are the woman's feelings of affection and fondness justified? Are they misplaced? Are they hollow sentiments because they can't be mutually requited -- and does it make a difference? Or is the whole issue bogus and flapping gums? A prime reason why the issue isn't bogus is because we're dealing with human feelings, and any human trait that can be affected or hurt by a new wrinkle of technology is always worthy of examination.
The creation of Artificial Surrogate Children (ASC) are a wrinkle that taps into the core of our tenderest and most vulnerable emotions, in a niche which most of us are familiar with. For thousands of years dolls have proven their powerful affect on one's sentiments and sense of security, and not just with primarily little girls. Many women of all classes and professions still retain deep bonds to dolls of their childhood and even newly gifted ones, and woe to the burglar caught trying to rip their dollie off! There are whole movies and theater and television sub-plots made about rejoining doleful little girls with their lost precious doll. Sisters have bruised another's feelings and even estranged fighting over the possession of a doll. So with even dolls, mostly composed of inert fabrics and plastics and largely inanimate and all "unaware" of their owners, the emotional attachment can be significant and poignant and profound. Sometimes the depth of this possession can even par one's regard for a fellow human.
This vital understanding is the bedrock of this topic; that humans can be emotionally attached to non-biological objects and articles. In recognizing this early on, we can skip any moot discussion of whether ASCs, designed and programmed to pass as a real child to all our human senses and sensibilities, can impact at least as powerfully as a doll. In fact, the level which ASCs can attach themselves to our feelings may well rival if not surpass that of a household pet. Can ASCs one day give cats and dogs pink slips? Can ASCs ever match the warm cuddly feelings pets give us? Can we ever feel about ASCs at least as strongly as we do pets? We should test our assumptions and prejudices; put a cat in the child's place in the image above and ask the same questions.
One crucial point before we proceed:
Like all the V.I.C.I.-class ADAs and Vanessa-class ASCs mentioned in the Small Wonder Home Page, we mostly discuss endowing advanced reality-based a.i. capabilities and qualities to robots which most of us might see well in our lifetimes were the funds and commitment and daring to build were there, a'la Project Apollo to the Moon. Still, even our current best efforts won't conjure up Star Trek Commander Data-class much less Questor-class sentient androids for at least several generations. Thus the issue of ADAs and ASCs ever acquiring or possessing true consciousness, minds or souls is largely a non-issue for this page's central characters, though it is discussed in our "Small Wonder Seriously" section. What's important to remember is that the social affects and problems ASCs and ADAs pose will be significant enough without resorting to injecting any conscious capacity in the mix. In fact if you want to, think of Vicki and Vanessa as being important social and legal "dress rehearsals" to sentient androids of the future.
How many people can you count who call their cats and dogs their "baby!" -- and mean it? I lost count in my neighborhood alone. There are many of this type (especially among the animal rights crowd) who equate their pets as having minds and souls equivalent to a human's in most every way, yet every indication is that -- as lovable cats and dogs are -- they are primarily driven by million-year-old hardwired instincts, not by any true volition as we possess. Some would call the depth of these owners' emotions misplaced and absurd, yet most of the public respect this regard and affection of animals as genuine and even "mutual". But are our feelings REALLY being appreciated by them -- or more pointedly, can they even sense -- much less comprehend them?
The question here is, what makes us prone to affections for a non-human -- namely a cat or dog? Why do we demean any artificial creature from receiving the same treatment? Is it because animal pets have no circuits and mechanisms? Why is that? Among the most distasteful sights on earth are seeing cats and dogs scraped off highways, yet I'm to base the allegiance of my kindred affection with fellow lifeforms on semi-jellified guts and icky fluids just because I share them too? There must be more to any emotional relation than that! Or is it that we secretly hope cats and dogs harbor souls and a consciousness and a real understanding of our feelings, hence "give them a break" as honorary humans when we let them run the house and curl up in our laps?
What's the criteria for us to give cats and dogs a break in our fondness department? Well, first off we still regard them as subhuman for a start, perhaps a good thing too. We might argue that doesn't mean they have consciences, just "lower level" ones, but unfortunately there's no empirical way we can prove that. The thing about having a conscience is you can only really prove its existence by one's actions and moral response. Unlike humans, virtually every animal to a one is pretty much selfish to the core. There's no share and share alike, no sense of sacrifice beyond the maternal nest and no real interest in a world beyond contentment. Anyone who owns a pet could sense that over 90% of their pets' behavior and experiences are not only non-creative but monotonous, primarily dictated by the basic drives of cold selfish instincts. If there is a conscience in Tabby and Fido then it must be a pretty narrow and shadowy tunnel vision of existence.
This not to knock pets or put them out of business; it's just taking a deep look into the sponge most of us bank our emotions on with a pet. We have to ask ourselves, just how "sincere" are our pets in returning our "affections" or are they just playing up to our emotional weaknesses for gain (i.e. Law Of The Jungle)? A cat's basically freeloading attitude merely sees us as providers and masseuses while dogs have been so domesticated that they largely can't survive very well without us. There's a huge selfish motive here in both cases. Not that it's wrong; it's survival. The real question is are we being prejudiced when we question whether quasi-sentient type robots are worthy the same affections we accord to animals.
Of course one could say that the animal "feels" something from us and purrs it back to us, but again how do or can we know that affection is it's intent or even within its capability? Can we get in its head and find out if kitty knows pity, compassion and empathy -- hopefully the stuff that makes friendships worth having? Unfortunately kitty and doggie don't express these themes, these basics of sympathetic regard or brotherhood much less love. We personify things they instinctively do without an ounce of unselfishness or consideration. The "psyche" of a cat must be as alien as ET, and chances are is a lot colder. Ironically, much of this can be said for our pretty cybertot above, but there can be some very important distinctions that lift her above a pet.
First, I think it's very important to take physical perceptions into account here. Too many think of androids (and cybertots) as resembling oversized Barbie dolls with flat plastic skins and painted faces and stiff and jerky movements. Animatronic technology can and will make androids physically indistinguishable from a human counterpart (we can do it now provided the bucks), and that will be the first test of how we perceive creatures such the cybertots because humans are motivated by looks and charm and beauty, and that will be their first leg up in hooking us emotionally. We already see this in pets, in how we're able to differentiate "nice looking" and "cute" animals from ugly ones. Indeed, there're many pets we wouldn't tolerate under our roof if they didn't look so lovely on the living room carpet. But looks are only one half of the equation with cybertots. The meat is in its behavioral fidelity, or how fully and accurately it comes across as a real human child in manners and rapport.
Let us say that this winsome looking tektyke arrived fresh from "Cyber Companions Inc." with a tabula rosa memory and her maximum raw a.i. "I.Q." won't develop much farther than a Cocker Spaniel's or a two-year-old child (the "Peter Pan Limit" as defined in Vanessa in "Too Good To Be True"). That's consistent with what we can do today if someone rammed a.i. technology and the goal. Her PEP's (Personality Emulation Programming) been programmed with the observed, photographed and digitized basic behavior of other four-year-olds of her "apparent" (or social interface's competence) age. Her a.i. autocognition knows how to interpret human gestures directed at her and roughly how to respond to them. Her "psyche" is programmed to watch you, learn about you, to see what makes you tick then uses that data to create novel sets of behavior to respond to you by. What's vital to understand and appreciate here is that beneath the sterile programming context here is that it makes our cybertot not only "aware" of our personalities but what drives them too. She can communicate and after a fashion comprehend what we say and mean. She can relate to us at our level with messages that aren't inferred by barks and purring and licking tongues. In a sense, her "keen" and acknowledgement of our existence and unique personal values are more "sincere" in respecting and recognizing us than the cozying and buttering you up as a cat will do.
Perhaps the most valuable expression of humanity this cybertot possesses is her own "real" quasi-human personality, just like a real tot. No cookie-cutter behavior. Everything she learns under your roof is unique; she might be #891 from the factory, but once at your home her experiences and education in your company and family make her "memories" and reactions to you as unique as a fingerprint--or another child. Not only are her family memories as unique as ours, but so shall her "personality". How good--or bad, or bratty or charming she turns out depends largely on how you treat or ignore her in throwing more random factors into how her PEP psyche responds to you.
So the question is, doesn't our cybertot deserve at least as much of our emotional trust as kitty or pooch get? Do we impart mystic powers to a cranium full of mush to say a pet's "feelings" are more real or do we see these affections reflected by example? Do we knock cybertot because her basic instincts were only gleaned from other human children instead of cold dog-eat-dog instincts honed by millions of years of savage strife? If cybertot wants to nuzzle noses with you after her bath, is her prompt to do so more fake and phony and less sincere (from assessing that environmental factors, child behavior response tallies, your current mood and the history of the day telling her that you deserve a cute reward today) than kitty rubbing against your ankle to order you to scratch its itch?
So maybe it all comes down to not whose feelings are more genuine, but whose matters most in a non-human rapport: the pet, the cyberchild, or the owner? Maybe we should accept non-human expressions of returned affections in a "black box" way; it doesn't matter how they get you there, the point is you arrive.
My main contention was to cite a basic unfairness and prejudice in how we regard cybercreatures as opposed to biological pets. I can't go into the kind of specific examples here without compromising future storylines if the new version pans out, but let's understand the ground rules of domestic robots so we have a clearer picture of what we ought expect of them.
Generally, in the intermediate and near future there will be three different classes of ADAs (android domestic aides) whose lucrative manufacture will most impact us, and which will be the vanguard of semi-sentient ones fifty years hence. The first class (or really "grade") is the rudimentary "go fetch 'em!" robot, of which Androbot and Hero One and its type foresaw. We haven't even tapped the full functional range of this class, and right now it's highest expression can be seen in the Engleberger robots cruising hospitals and malls. The highest form of this type will occur when they dump wheels for legs, and when this happens (also assuming visual interpretation and a.i. advances enough to "recognize" the different types of objects in a home), then we will have our first really maneuverable robot. The Honda Robot is a pioneering form of the advanced class ADA. It's unlikely that this class will look any more humanoid than this; it'd probably resemble the cheapie man-in-a-tin-suit robot in B-movies, but that's alright. This robot will be the "break-even" technology demonstrator of autonomous a.i., ambulatory and visual technology; it will prove once and for all that domestic robotics is possible. It's very unlikely this type of robot will be mainstreamed into the market except as a rich-man's novel labor-saving toy. It's simply too ugly and clanky and intimidating for most people to leave in their homes with the kids. Instead, these first buyers will in effect be beta testers, helping to wring out the domestic chores programming and other kinks while the industry's next phase is learning to drive the price down and making the thing even more energy efficient and smaller. Which leads us to...
The Class Two ADA, of which Vicki is a member, is intended for the greater mainstream marketplace and its final shape and form dictated by market research. I've gone over this puppy many times in "The Wonder Of Small Wonder," "Series Background," and "Technical Background" to rehash here, but suffice to say, the form of a little girl is the least intimidating, most pleasing and charming one that a robot could host; it wasn't an accident or whimsey that Vicki wasn't a Victor. This is borne out overseas where gynoids (female androids) litter the film and literary landscape as much as the guy ones do. Anyway, the Class Two ADA will wrap all Class One's advances in a neat pretty package. It's this class that will truly wed "hard robotics" with animatronics since the main purpose is creating not a bizarre-looking oversized vinyl doll, but a nearly indistinguishable human gynoid. Ironically, the basic Class One's chores and navigation programming will likely be loaded into Class Twos with little change since the prime industry goal is getting a functional and aesthetically pleasing domestic robot out into the marketplace. For all intents and purposes Vicki IS a Class One ADA except with a prettier housing, thus on Small Wonder, Vicki's stiff and stoic demeanor was really faithful to the "no frills" intent of her ADA chores programming; mainly to execute orders to address a service or fetch, period. Though on Small Wonder there were off-the-wall flings with making Vicki ape people to the extent that she was parading in pageants and passing in school yet, in truth there'd be no real intent on making a Class Two ADA "human-like" or sociable past being family-friendly. Just getting the plain old household basics down pat is enough. It is likely though that a Class Two's family-friendly programming would incorporate "body English" templates of digitized human movements and reflexes to smooth out her basic mechanical demeanor (i.e. "mellow" her gait, exaggerate any direct movement, blink, etc.) A really advanced Class Two would also incorporate a FPP (Family Personality Profile) running, and this honey of a database has the neat and necessary trick of watching and learning everything specific about you, from your tastes and hates and loves and nasty little habits. This makes her keen about your personality and how to properly serve and address you and maybe even anticipate some need or requirement you might have. In Small Wonder, Vicki displayed only the vaguest of this capability.
The Class Three ADA goes a major social step beyond Class Twos (check out Vanessa's promise) into the realm of ASCs, and this is basically to address and play up to our perceptions of its humanity. Physically, an ASC/Class Three ADA could be identical to Class Twos except for minor mechanical upgrades, but the big difference is in its PEP ("Personality Emulation Program". Please refer to above linked articles). How effectively PEP performs is dependent in the refinement and variety of its human source material. The ultimate expression of PEP is creating an ASC which is behaviorally indistinguishable from a real person. Though getting even close to 90% would seem unlikely without herculean effort and maybe some unethical programming techniques, even PEP with 60% HBF (human behavior fidelity) would be passable in unwary company and society because we all unconsciously make adjustments for a wide range of normal and abnormal behavior. Warning; do not take PEP for any cognitive or "conscious" much less sentient capability. Consider PEP as a vast database of apt human expressions and responses to any given event or circumstance; a "sampling" of one's outward demeanor in a sense. Technically, her actual outward physical mien (posture, expression) is handled by her Social Interface Program or "SIP," which carries out the apt responses delivered by the PEP. It should be emphasized that Class Two Vicki has only rudimentary "intelligence" for chores functions. Even though ASC Vanessa's PEP enables her to simulate and emulate most human behaviors, in raw computative horsepower for this time period, she actually has the "I.Q." of a bright rat (this is her _cognitive_ or "reasoning" capacity outside her basic domestic chores programming. Vanessa acts like a real ten-year-old girl because her a.i. knows how to "poll" PEP's "script" of how a human child behaves for a given situation, from voice inflection to smirk to naughty words. Getting into PEP is where we tread on the once exclusive emotional domain of pets and our affections. ASCs are actually socially enhanced Class Two ADAs in that they function far beyond executing the menial functions of housework but as actual human kids. Because of their high HBF, ASCs can pass and perform as surrogate children for bachelors or nurse/ guardian grandchildren for elders as in the premise of "Too Good To Be True." They can act as cute non-animal companions in nursing homes and hospitals and even be parental child-raising teaching "tools." A very controv role!
As I mentioned in the beginning, I am interested in why most people perceive robots as "cold-hearted" creatures while bio pets are seen as warm and cuddly and "more like us." As I mentioned in my last post, it's curious why people believe this way when pure raw instinct is as cold and selfish and uncompassionate as any computer program you can find around. Just because it's bundled in cute warm fur doesn't change much. As Herb said, people tend to personify a cat's idiosyncrasies as its "character," even though that disappears out of sight of its owners. Vets are able to do what they do well because outside the presence of their owners, bio pets exhibit virtually identical characteristics and responses outside those imposed by rigorous or brutal training. One wonders where's the expression of a conscience or "soul" there. This not to demean cats and dogs but to establish a level playing field. In fact, Class Two ADAs fit right in this category. ASCs with their PEPs, however, present a new wrinkle that pits them head-to-head with bio pets, and that's in the matter of stroking our affections and emotions. Without truly knowing whether cats have souls or consciences, we indulge them our love and wallets to ride along with our titillation and glands. If we're willing to exempt bio pets with our ignorance on this matter, why can't we also exempt ASCs? Remember we have discriminate a little here; while Vicki (as a Class Two ADA) was able to evoke sentiments from us, that was largely a one-way effect; we were charmed by her pretty perception; her looks and manner, not by any "personality" she didn't exhibit.
An ASC like Vanessa (or a cybertot for that matter) is a different animal because she/it actively interacts with us at a human level, drawing on and manipulating PEP's vast database of actual digitized human behaviors and responses. One more thing that's important; PEP works in conjunction with a heuristical mnemonic base. This means that Vanessa monitors how you return her responses and the circumstances and files them away and might attempt to incite your response for a different situation. Along with her FPP and PEP's database of spontaneous "whims" of kids her age, Vanessa's minute by minute demeanor can appear as random and unpredictable as any child depending on how she/it's treated. In fact it might become just as haughty (i.e. You establish to Vanessa that getting a cookie is a reward for a job or behavior well done, but late at night her PEP says her "crave" [the circumstances are right] for her to sneak out a cookie even though she's done nothing to deserve it. Worst, suppose she learns that you excused her for accidentally breaking a vase just because she smiles the right way; she might slyly use that as a "key" to make you break your own rules if you catch her illegally raiding a cookie, etc.).
Assuming Vanessa or the cybertot can whip a social Turing test with ease (say they stayed over your place for a month before you were informed of their truth), could you really make the mental switch to merely seeing them as "cold-blooded" mechanisms? Say during that month they were more warm and entertaining and fun than your cat by playing games with you and engaging in simple conversation, while your cat on its best days just arches its back against your shin because there's a flea it wants you to scratch off it's rear. Whose responses to you are more "caring" and sincere? What's the criteria we demand of bio pets to please us? My list short list is:
1. Does it REALLY care about me?
2. Does it have any feelings to appreciate the ones I give it?
3. Does it have free will to reject me?
Again I have to hit the cat, but I'll let a cat owner answer #1. I can tell you by personal experience here that most cats would happily have several masters (homes) catering their wishes if the neighbors were so gullible. The answer pertaining to say, Vanessa in this case is; yeah, but how can Vanessa really have loyalty if she's just programmed to obey us? This is a valid argument in Vicki's case, but remember that Vanessa is driven by PEP, which can respond depending on the circumstances to develop arbitrary solutions that most children might consider. Vanessa is even "free" to run away if her family and interpersonal environment turns unfavorable to her PEP. Prospective ideas for the new show displays that Vicki's "favoritism" can be vied for by other members of the family in a de facto kind of free will/volition. Her PEP will know basic right and wrongs, but the deciding factor of her response (i.e. choice) is weighed by the positive-negative manner she's been treated by on individual. (In Small Wonder Vicki didn't really interface with the family members on a personal basis. The new one can get a whole lot more involved.).
This is powerful programming, even if it isn't anywhere generating a real conscience (pseudo-conscious maybe). It gives ASCs the illusion of having awareness and free will. They can like you or dislike you simply by your own input, reinforced by and based on the value system and real attitudes of live human models. She/it in effect becomes -- in a very real way -- a child of your persona. It's HBF might not work 90% true, and it might not mentally develop past a two-year-old upstairs, but the wholesome response this ASC would give you is overwhelmingly kindred with the way we think and even feel compared to the shin-rubbings of a cat, who hangs around you basically for a good stroke and a warm place to feast. In TGTBT, the favorite slogan of the writers about why Vanessa's "grandmother" dotes her so unconditionally is that "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck." Maybe ASCs at least deserve the same kind of regard and affection any cat does, if not more.
Check out the pageant at Sugar n' Spice n' Everything Byte!
