Watson, IBM’s Jeopardy! computer, doesn’t even look like a computer. Watson has a “face,” consisting of a screen that displays a constantly changing pattern based on Watson’s confidence when answering questions. Watson doesn’t require a human to run–the computer reads the same questions that are provided to the human players, and responds using a text-to-speech system. Watson is arguably more humanlike than any other computer ever created.

Photo Credit: Vaxomatic via Flickr

In 1950, Alan Turing created a system to determine whether or not a computer demonstrated artificial intelligence. Essentially, it revolved around having a computer and a human participate in a conversation. When the human could not distinguish the computer from a person, the computer was considered artificially intelligent.

Watson is by no means a human, nor does it demonstrate true artificial intelligence. Some of Watson’s answers during the Jeopardy! tournament showed that it wasn’t a human. For example, in response to the question “Gambler Charles Wells is believed to have inspired the song “The Man Who” did this “at Monte Carlo.” to which Watson responded “Song?” (Correct answer: Broke the Bank). Another time, Watson stated that Toronto was in the United States (it’s not–it’s in Canada).

So Watson isn’t human–but he’s in a place that definitely blurs the lines between humans and computers. Which, naturally, raises many questions about how we view and treat Watson (and perhaps computers in the future). Can we simply “unplug” Watson? We wouldn’t “unplug” a human, so can we kill a computer that has humanistic traits? Can we make decisions for Watson? If true artificial intelligence ever emerges, how do our responses to these questions change?

Watson can’t make decisions on its own, and thus really doesn’t have true “intelligence”–or does it? It could be argued that a young child can’t make decisions on its own, but we still treat children as fully fledged humans. What about Watson? Is it a fully fledged enough human?

One of the points which has been raised by critics is that Watson will only show its true abilities when it is able to accomplish a task that is beneficial to society-perhaps in a field such as healthcare or education, as opposed to merely a Jeopardy! game. But this brings up a dilemma-do we judge artificial intelligence based on its utility for humans, or do we judge the intelligence aspect of the machine itself, regardless of the function it performs? And how should this question be treated when we look at other people and animals?

The answers to many of these questions will never be 100% certain, but as we move into an age where the possibility of artificial intelligence is seemingly very real, these are questions that our generation and those who follow will have to acknowledge. And with these questions, we will once again have to reevaluate our view of the world and how we treat other people and especially animals. Watson’s television entertainment days are probably gone, but its impact on artificial intelligence will continue to mold society, and with that, the way we evaluate the ethics of our actions.

Photo credit: Sebastianlund via Flickr

In the era of aging baby boomers, we are concerned about many things: the death of social security, the rise of medical costs, and the overcrowding of nursing homes.  One thing that I am sure we have not considered is the rise of robots.

Yes, you heard (read) me correctly – robots.  According to a February 3^rd BBC News article, Japan is pioneering `a caretaker robot for the elderly.  Ri-Man is his name, and he is currently on the market!

Given the declining birthrate, loosening family ties, and strict immigration laws, nursing home workers are in high-demand in Japan.  Leave it up to Toyota and Honda to decide that in addition to automated vehicles, they could produce automated nannies as well!  Ri-Man may be native to Japan, but he could soon be looking after of our baby boomers.  The U.S is also in dire need of elderly care-takers.

Although I was initially very excited by the technology behind Ri-Man, I quickly grew unsettled by the idea.  At first, I couldn’t pinpoint the source of my uneasiness.  After all, robots are appliances, and I use appliances all the time.  My coffee-maker brews my coffee, my microwave heats up my ramen, my straightener tames my hair – I even use an electric toothbrush for goodness sake!  So, why am I so bothered by Ri-Man when I am perfectly content to have technology assist me in every other aspect of my life?

The answer is actually quite straightforward.  I am not disconcerted by what Ri-Man does, but rather who he takes care of. In an age when technology can replace almost anything, I think it is still callous to assume that robots are adequate substitutes to look after our parents and grandparents.

Robots can’t replace human love, human attention, or human touch.  Although Ri-Man can take your pulse, measure your blood pressure, and administer your medication, he can’t talk to you about your day, empathize with your pain, or show genuine affection.  Social isolation in nursing homes not only increases loneliness, but also has adversely affects health.  (See “The Relationship of Social Engagement to Psychological Well-Being of Older Adults in Assisted Living Facilities” for more information).

A line needs to be drawn.  If we allow robots to take care of our elderly, will we allow robots to teach our kids?  Will we allow robots to raise our kids?  Will we allow robots to do our jobs?  Will we allow robots to serve as our girlfriends/ boyfriends? (See Robot Girlfriend)

Call me old-fashioned, but sorry, Ri-Man, I don’t believe technology should be omnipotent.