Will Smith as Detective Del Spooner
20th Century Fox
Will Smith plays Detective Del Spooner in the sci-fi film "I, Robot."
By SETI Institute
updated 7/15/2004 5:01:59 PM ET 2004-07-15T21:01:59

If you think you can beat Nature, you’re not merely afflicted with hubris; your affliction could prove terminal.

That’s the message of cautionary cinema sci-fi. This popular movie genre proclaims that man’s quest to control his environment with technology is no stroll along a yellow-brick road to wondrous things, but a green-mile march to self-destruction.

The dangers of living in our own technological future comprise the leitmotiv of "I, Robot," a new movie inspired by Isaac Asimov’s classic story collection of the same name. The film, which takes place in 2035, is set in downtown Chicago, a sunny version of the seething urban environment Ridley Scott created for Blade Runner. The streets teem with humanity, yes, but there are robots everywhere. The sophisticated cyborgs seem benign, as they collect garbage and walk dogs. They’re as helpful and humble as Hudson, the butler.

But homicide detective Del Spooner, played by Will Smith, is leery. He suspects that the newest models of the apparently deferential automatons, widely used as household appliances, are beginning to chafe under their titanium collars. The whole scene is reminiscent of imperial Rome, a city filled with slaves — a worrisome underclass that just might decide that their lot needs improving.

Nonetheless, few share Spooner’s disquiet. “Robots don’t feel anything; they’re not alive,” he’s told. And indeed, the robots are merely “lights and clockwork,” right? Just sophisticated software, controlling anthropomorphic bodies that look as if they’ve been assembled from brushed metal bike parts rustled from Lance Armstrong’s garage. And if that doesn’t calm your nerves, consider this: they all come with a warranty. They’re programmed to rigorously conform to the three robotic laws famously espoused by Asimov in his stories. The laws boil down to this: “obey humans, cause them no harm, and protect yourself insofar as this doesn’t compromise your human masters.”

Unexpected behavior
Well, as everyone knows, software’s seldom perfect. A technological guru for U.S. Robotics, the industrial concern cranking out these synthetic bipeds, warns of “ghosts in the machine” — presumably the interaction of various hunks of code that might lead to unexpected behavior.  Behavior that might make the robots all-too-human. Behavior that might make them break the laws.

"I, Robot" is more than a look at the sociology of fictional, hi-tech companions, dealing with such wrenching problems as whether androids can have emotions or a soul. And, despite large dollops of robot combat, it’s more than just a futuristic action flick, too.

That’s probably because Asimov himself was less interested in the action than in concepts.  “His stories were very cerebral,” says Robyn Asimov, daughter of the writer. “Action wasn’t his thing: ideas were.”

Well, the ideas are there. Yes, the film is both engrossing and fun (Will Smith excels at delivering deadpan lines). In addition, these are not your daddy’s robots, restricted to standing around uselessly and occasionally muttering “Danger, Wil Robinson.” These upgraded bots have more agility then a 12-year-old, and more energy, too (the future has clearly improved on lithium-ion batteries). It makes for a fast-paced film.

But "I, Robot" delves deeper: it forces us to confront what might soon become a real scenario, rather than just a movie plot. There’s little doubt that by the year 2035, you’ll be able to buy the computer power of a human brain for the price of a lunch. That’s right: a chip with the processing power of that gray CPU in your skull will cost no more than a single bill out of the ATM machine.

Future of human-style intelligence
Now admittedly, there are some who believe that, despite such capability, machines will never be capable of human-style intelligence. But that suggests that there is some sort of unfathomable miracle going on between our ears.

The alternative view is that synthetic sentience — thinking machines that can “write a symphony, or turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece” — is not only a possible development, but one that will probably occur in this century. Asimov wrote his robot stories in 1950. A bare two generations later, it’s possible that the fiction will be superceded by fact.

If we do invent thinking machines, how will we handle their interaction with us? Will we be able to forever cripple their initiative, with laws similar to Asimov’s, in order to avoid situations in which the created turn on their creators? Can we always pull the plug on the androids?

That may not be possible. Another approach is to reach an accommodation with synthetic intelligence; simply shake hands and “get along.” The precedent for this isn’t good. Thirty thousand years ago, there were other sentient beings on this planet: the Neanderthals, hominids with brains even larger than ours (although their intellects were inferior). The Neanderthals couldn’t compete: they evolved only slowly. There was no way they could overtake us in the mind race. They were driven extinct.

However, artificial intelligence, unfettered by Darwinian evolution, could overtake us. So a society in which two thinking species co-exist may be a fundamentally flawed concept.

Ideas about how we treat, or will be treated by, synthetic cerebrals, is more than just grist for a film. It’s speculation for our own future. And keep this in mind, too: what happens on our world is likely to have analogs on others. If we find intelligence elsewhere in the galaxy, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to be their robots; beings whose interests and activities may go well beyond walking pets or collecting the garbage.

"I, Robot" is gripping entertainment. But it might also be a useful insight into our own future, and into other societies’ past.

© 2013 Space.com. All rights reserved. More from Space.com.


Discussion comments


Most active discussions

  1. votes comments
  2. votes comments
  3. votes comments
  4. votes comments