Rules of Robotics

photo-1546106586-87f89f0c5877

Isaac Asimov came up with some interesting rules for robots. I paraphrase them to add a bit of focus and clarity to them.

Isaac’s rules of robotics (paraphrased):

  1. No robot may harm humanity or allow humanity to come to harm.
  2. No robot may harm an individual human.
  3. No robot may disobey a command, unless the action would harm a human.
  4. No robot will harm itself.

Hopefully it’s noticeable the focus of his rules was “harm”. Asimov created these rules for literary purposes, not because he was actually programming robots. The idea of robots battling humans is eerie to some people, frightening to others, inevitable to still others, and to one last group gives a sense of adventure. The focus on harm makes for a good story. It’s fun to imagine the thrill of a world in which robots resist their creators.

The major problem with Asimov’s rules is that the word harm would have to be defined. The idea gives me a chuckle. Judging from twenty years of spell check and auto-correct, with some of the most simple words missing from digital dictionaries, I don’t think we can trust computer programmers to come up with the definition of harm. It’s not the robots we need to worry about, it’s the programmers’ vocabularies.

In other words, the administrator function is one function that could end up in the wrong hands.

The only way out of a bad cycle (or into a bad cycle) is with the ability of the robot to learn. An artificial intelligence would be able to adjust its definitions. “Harm” could evolve to mean even emotional harm, though it would be more difficult for an artificial intelligence to recognize emotional harm. “Harm” could also evolve to mean lack of preservation. Once your house robot learned your “diet” cola was more harmful for you than good, it wouldn’t allow you to drink the nasty stuff. Maybe it would pour the drink in the bushes. Maybe it would stomp the cans wherever they were. Once it learned your chocolate bar wasn’t healthy, it wouldn’t let you eat it. Maybe it would hide your candy bar. We can all see where this line might lead.

A robot could undo a lot of enjoyable things.

Rock and roll? Nope. It could hurt your ears. Television? Of course not. Your eyes! Nitro-burning funny cars? Not a chance. You need to care for your mouth, throat, lungs, eyes, and ears, and of course your life. A campfire? No. See funny cars above for the reasons. A helper robot in the house? If there’s even the possibility the robot could become harmful, it would have to be removed or remove itself. Then it would contradict Asimov’s rule number four above.

Since definitions seem so necessary for working robots, I came up with my own rules.

Kurt’s rules of robotics:

  1. All definitions will be created by the administrator, but will be periodically reviewed, and are subject to change, by the end user.
  2. The robot will not create contradictory definitions.
  3. If the end user creates contradictory definitions, the robot will reduce its capabilities to an inert state known as “toaster mode”.

Air Quotes

SARCASM

Air Quotes were born from sarcasm.

Raise both hands up in the air. Make the sign of the rabbit, or the vee, or peace with two fingers up on each hand. Curl the raised fingers down half way, then raise them up again. You just made air quotes.

Air quotes tell the person you’re talking to, “I don’t really mean what I’m saying,” or air quotes tell the person you’re talking to, “I don’t believe in the meaning of the word.” If you can put the disqualifier of “so-called” in front of a word, then you could use air quotes. Or, if you could actually say “quote-unquote” around a certain dubious word, air quotes could be used.

For instance, you might question the skills of a manager at your work. You know full well the person was given the title because they’re currently in the position.

Occupancy doesn’t equate to skill.

Yet the title remains.

You happen to be talking to one of your co-workers about that particular person, and you say, “Dave is a fabulous,” insert air quotes, “manager.” You even pause just like you did while reading this. So of course Dave, whoever Dave might be, is a fabulous manager—in someone’s mind, or in some alternate dimension. But here in the real world, his qualifications are in name only. Dave is a so-called manager. Whether he actually manages to manage anything is up for debate.

Maybe you’re not talking about work at all. Maybe you want to talk about the weather. A friend brings up a recent tornado, and says, “Man, I can’t believe we got so much climate change yesterday.” Without slapping your head, you could drift into sarcasm, because you know the accepted scientific definition of climate is the measurement of weather over a long period of time, so by that definition, no single event could be titled “climate” or “climate change“, at least not in that context. If you choose this route, you’ll be a better friend. Say something like, “There’s a weather pattern in your,” insert air quotes, “brain, that I’m more concerned about.”

Maybe you’re not shooting the bull about the weather. Possibly the conversation is more drastic, more life-threatening. You’re a man, and a woman just asked you the deadly question of whether a specific clothing item changes her appearance. “Does this shirt with the vertical stripes make me look slimmer?” Your job as a man is to make her feel good about herself, but you want to be honest. If the truth is different from the sentence she wants to hear, let it play out like this:

“Yes you look slimmer.”

Notice there was no pause. Don’t pause at all. Say it fast and get out of there. Go to another part of the house, or go to work, or go to the bowling alley. You could even find a quiet location somewhere in the wilderness. When you’re miles away, make the air quotes. It doesn’t matter that you said “slimmer” an hour ago, or three days earlier. So long as you got those air quotes in there. Honesty maintained. Deadly conversation avoided. Phew! Now you can stop holding your breath, too.

Guest column—Ask Suzi Uzi

suziuzi

Dear Suzi,

My gluten-free gluteus has a junction malfunction. The breeze is cold. I don’t chemical treat. Is there a natural way to fix it?

Naturally,

Jean Lowe

 

Dear Mister Lowe,

Jean,

Are you aware nature is full of chemicals? In fact, that’s where we get all of our chemicals—nature. Don’t hurt your puny head with this little fact, but your body, including your gluteus, is composed of chemicals. It’s not the chemicals you need to worry about, it’s the reaction when you combine them. As for your junction, let’s assume…wait, maybe that’s the wrong word…let’s guess your problem is internal. If so, you might want to change your diet. If my first guess was wrong, your problem is external, and the fix is as easy as pulling up your pants.

Seriously,

Suzi Uzi, PhD

 

Dear Suzi,

I have a friend who uses chestnuts all the time. He won’t stop. He’s driving me crazy. Make him stop. Pleeeease!

Insanely yours,

French Fried Friend

 

Dear French,

You almost had me there. I was going to reply with some real advice column stuff. Only after I started to agree with you that chestnuts, cliches, maxims, and trite phrases are the bane of all mankind’s existence, did I realize you were talking about yourself. After I realized it, my advice changed. First of all, talking about yourself as if you weren’t in earshot is a quick step toward split personality disorder. Second, talking about yourself in that way is dishonest. Be honest with your own self first. Your friends, real friends, will notice and come around more often. Then you won’t need those imaginary friends.

Cordially,

Suzi Uzi, PhD

 

Dear Suzi,

There’s a couple of people in this world with the same name as me. Should I change my name to be different? Or should I contact all the others and have them change their names? I kinda like my name, so it’s like, you know? There’s also this girl I like, but she has the same name as a girl I don’t like. Should I tell her? Do you think she’d change her name if I asked her to? Do you think she’d be okay if I changed my name? Would she even recognize me if I did?

Sincerely,

Anonymous

 

Dear Anonymous,

You have tons of mental issues. I don’t think we can fix you with advice over the infonet. You need an extensive psychoanalysis, hypnotherapy, and possibly more direct treatment such as encephaloelectroinjectiontherapy. Please call the office and set up an appointment.

Yours,

Suzi Uzi, PhD

Jeep Safari/Rebelle Rally

photo-1507242207323-a3ca53b80849

As fun as it is sitting in an office typing up words to thrill and entertain others, there comes a time to go outside. That time is Spring. A person has a limited threshold for sitting and meditating on word structure, sentence composition, and grammar usage for the grammar impaired. At times it benefits a person, like you and me, to get out and meditate on trail structure, degree of articulation, and lift height. I’m talking about Jeep Safari.

Easter Jeep Safari, in Moab Utah, is hosted by Red Rock 4-Wheelers, and it really is a huge event for those who enjoy a little off road adventure. Some people participate by renting a Jeep from one of the adventure companies in Moab, such as Barlow Adventures. Others who participate bring their own tricked-out vehicles. Though the majority of the people who play on the Moab rocks are driving Jeeps, it isn’t so exclusive that you can’t bring a Taco or a Raptor. It just has to be a street legal four wheel drive vehicle (they don’t allow UTVs or ATVs).

Machine against Earth, the Easter Jeep Safari has long been a challenge. It requires some technical driving skills and some knowledge of mechanical limits. The Jeep Safari has been going on for a long time, since 1967. And there’s one guy who’s been to all of them—with the same Jeep! Okay, I totally made up that last line. It could happen though.

Easter Jeep Safari isn’t the only game around. There’s another amazing event that has only been going for a few years (since 2016), but is fun to track. It’s an all female rally called Rebelle Rally. When I first heard about it, I thought, “Rebelle? Is that a French word?” Nope. Turns out the woman who started the event, Emily Miller, wanted the rally to have a cool name, so she mixed the words rebel and belle to make Rebelle. It works for me.

Rebelle Rally

Even though this one doesn’t happen until October, it’s worth the wait.

The Rebelle Rally operates differently from other races like it. In the Rebelle, competitors are required to locate checkpoints without a GPS. The closer they get to the true checkpoint location, the more points their team scores. Competitors are challenged to meet each checkpoint at a certain time as well, so it really is more of a rally than a race. Sometimes they’re required to keep to an average speed instead of racing from point to point.

A rally like this requires a wide range of skills: strategy, navigation, driving, and even problem-solving. The inevitable mechanical problem is a hurdle. So are the dunes. During one of the previous competitions, one of the teams lightened their vehicle by throwing out hundreds of pounds of equipment. I would honestly be afraid to do that. I mean, how are you going to do if you’ve thrown away your spare tire? But then again, throwing out the weight is a strategy for getting over the sand in the California-Nevada desert.

Anyway, Spring is coming up for the Northern Hemisphere, and since that’s where I live, I’ve been thinking about all the fun things to do outside. The two events listed above are only a small portion.

Get out and explore.

Writing Advice—Critical Hardness

tiredcat

There’s a part of writing that’s generously difficult—giving and taking criticism.

It can be very difficult to give criticism. You have to employ tact. Unless you’re slightly sociopathic, you want to employ tact. You have to employ specifics, and that without going over the top with your criticism. You don’t want to break the writer. When you’re giving writing advice, you want to enhance the writer’s will to achieve, not enhance their introversion. A writer, given the wrong kind of criticism, will curl up inside themselves and stop interacting with the outside world. This might be a stereotype, but all the writers I know agree. They all say they’ve felt the desire to be a hermit at one time or another.

A scathing piece of criticism rarely puts someone in the mood to follow any advice given with it. Usually this method works in the opposite direction. If a writer hears some rotten insult, they don’t agree with it, they defend themselves. They fight back. If they’re too intimidated by the criticism, or the critic, they might become withdrawn.

So “HOW?” is the great question. How do we give writing advice without being a Darth Vader about it? Instead of threatening people with telekinetic strangle-holds, we can learn some things to say that prevent the bad feelings and promote the correction. Of course the best way to correct someone is by looking directly at their writing. Then you can see a specific instance, such as a typo or a grammar flaw, not all of them, just one instance, and point it out.

There are times when that’s not possible. At times the criticism has to be general because you can’t immediately see the work. In those cases, it’s best to let the writer hunt down the specifics for themselves. Encourage them to find typos by reading the work out loud to themselves (or, if they’re brave enough, to someone else). Encourage the writer to look at specific parts of grammar (noun, verb, adverb, adjective, conjunction, preposition) and make sure those words are doing their job properly. If not, then the writer needs to place the words in the right spot so all the words work together. Encourage the writer to make sure there’s variety in their writing. Too much of anything can make the writing piece dull. You can’t have action all the time or people get desensitized by it—and desensitized to it. Dialog has to be interrupted at times. Adjectives can’t come in all-consuming waves. Variety has been compared with a spice. That’s a cooking metaphor. Chances are, you wouldn’t cook something to eat with only one ingredient. A meal, a dish, an entree, is certain to be better with some variety.

On the flip side, a writer needs to be able to receive criticism. Is that tougher than giving? Not if you’re me. I give myself criticism. I think it’s a valuable tool though. If I didn’t criticize my own work, I wouldn’t get better. Anyone who’s done it long enough can go read some of their earlier work. Only the oblivious wouldn’t see where the writing is weak, and where it has improved, and where the new stuff could improve. A benefit from that too, is the ability to receive criticism from others. You start to see where a piece of writing can be improved, but you also see how any scrutiny is worth hearing, worth having, and worth investigating.

I once got some criticism from an editor. He pointed out how many times I used certain words, how often I used the main character’s name, how often I used dialog interrupts. One time he pointed out where I managed to construct a passive sentence. I replied, “The passive sentence was written by me.” He verbally patted me on the head and pronounced me fit for public places.

“Good boy. Go play outside.”

Don’t get me wrong. Accolades are nice. Kudos feel better than chides, corrections, and slashes on our work. Adulations, however, don’t promote progress. The problems have to be recognized before they can be fixed, and you can’t fix a problem unless you can recognize it. If you’re too married to your own work, it can be difficult to see the mistakes. When that happens, an objective point of view is absolutely necessary. But that leads us into another topic with another question: How should a writer pick a proof-reader or a beta reader? I’ll detail some thoughts on that some other time. For now, remember criticism is difficult. It’s also totally, one hundred percent necessary.