Robots and Us

Question: Why should a psychiatrist devote a blog to discuss robots and artificial intelligence?

Answer: More and more, computers, including those with a bodily presence like robots, disrupt aspects of our daily lives.  As the technological evolution marches on, so does change, which occurs at an increasingly accelerating rate, unnerving many of us, and causing symptoms of anxiety, fear and depression.

According to a June Psychology Today article, AI will affect our identity, our sense of privacy, notions of ownership, our patterns of shopping, the hours of work and leisure, our skills and careers and interpersonal relationships, if doesn’t already.

Transformations are occurring in every industry:  In his August 2 New York Times editorial, Tom Friedman states AI can analyze (see patterns that were always hidden before); optimize (tell a plane which altitude to fly each mile to get the best fuel efficiency); prophesize  (tell you when your elevator will break and fix it before it does); customize (tailor any product or service for you alone) and digitize and automate just about any job.

So, on the positive side, computers can perform amazing feats and improve our lives.  In the field of medicine, they do as well or better in diagnosis and prognosis. They can detect the spread of breast cancer into lymph nodes with accuracy comparable to pathologists. They can report changes of diabetes in images of a patient’s retinas. They can diagnose tuberculosis in chest x-rays with the accuracy of a radiologist.

To the dismay of many of us, they can imitate us to the point that we can’t distinguish them from us and in the future, they will become even better at fooling us; Sony is working on the ability of robots to simulate human emotions.

Eventually, they may be able to take over some tasks of the psychotherapist. Although this humane capacity is perturbing, after working with some well-meaning parents who haven’t been taught or learned parenting skills, I have envisioned that robots could help teach parenting skills and basic principles of child psychological development to benefit us all.

According to a survey by The Financial Times, one-half of computer scientists say that AI will outsmart humans by 2040, while 90% expect the task will be accomplished by 2075.

Most experts now agree about the ability of AI to develop the power to destroy us.  The risks of AI concern inventor Elon Musk, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and Microsoft co-founder Steve Wozniak and computer scientist Ray Kurzweil.

Disaster could occur in the following scenario: AI, programmed to accomplish a geo-engineering project, develops a destructive method and, instead of helping, wreaks havoc with our ecosystem. Human intervention to stop it, could be perceived as a threat, at which point the robot might turn against us and attack.

On the other hand, computer scientist, Dr. Jurgen Schmidhuber, has a slightly sunnier view. In his opinion, AI will outstrip our intelligence by 2050, but he doesn’t think these genius computers will pay attention to us. They will see “little point in getting stuck to our bit of the biosphere. They will want to move history to the next level and march out to where the resources are. In a couple of million years, they will have colonized the Milky Way.” Furthermore, he doesn’t think they will enslave us, because we’d make bad slaves for an entity that could build robots far superior to us.

“They will pay about as much attention to us as we do to ants,” he adds.

He offers advice that few could or would debate: He tells his two daughters: “Just prepare to learn how to learn.” As computers take over old jobs, new jobs like professional video gamers and YouTube stars emerge.

Speaking historically, he sees two possible solutions for us humans: to collaborate or compete.  In his opinion, when we encounter this fork in the road, collaboration wins out.  He appears to be the optimist among computer experts as Dr. Steven Pinker, author of The Better Angels of Our Nature, is the optimist among psychologists.

In my opinion, evolution is dialectical:  That is, thesis (or positive, the beneficial) is followed by the opposite, or antithesis (the negative aspects). Eventually, thesis combines with antithesis to merge into a new and novel synthesis.

History has worked in our favor, witnessed by our survival thus far. In the past, we’ve coped with solving the problems that have emerged with   progress: The power of antibiotics to cure has come with the creation of resistant strains of pathogens.  The benefits of nuclear energy convey the power to destroy nations and the world. Fossil fuels have powered industries but have resulted in the dangers of global warming. (The Paris Accord demonstrated the great potential of nations to collaborate, aided by environmentalist Al Gore—please see his new movie, An Inconvenient Truth— until president Trump threatened to unravel the progress).

As we have in the past, let’s hope we continue to optimize the benefits and minimize the destructive potential of new developments. At present, computer experts agree that we humans have the upper flesh and blood hand. But to maintain our superior position, we may have to collaborate to avoid programming AI to the point that it develops the capacity to destroy us and our planet.

In view of these uncertainties, we’re entitled to, and share anxieties and fears in the present and about the future. It is helpful to think of our great potential to collaborate on all levels of our existence: individual, familial, national and international.

Dear Reader, Please write to me: jsimon145@gmail.com