IMS 103 Assignment Blog

“After finishing Isaac Asimov’s Caves of Steel, write three or four paragraphs considering the following. what we can tolerate in a robot? Are we threatened by robots? Can we accept them if they look like what they are — machines? If they look “human”, do we respond to them as if they are human? If so, why? What do we read as “human” in a machine — eyes? A mouth? Humor? I am thinking, too, of how we respond to those primates closest to us — chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas — don’t we find their behavior reminiscent of human behavior? Do we just end up anthropomorphizing¹ them rather than responding to them as what they are, non-human animal relatives?”

“‘[Baley] My question is, why humanoid robots? […] Why should he look more or less like a man?’

‘[Dr. Gerrigel] You mean, why shouldn’t he be built functionally, like any other machine?’ […]

‘[Dr. Gerrigel] The decision was made on the basis of economics.’ […]

‘[Baley] But why the human form?’

‘[Dr. Gerrigel] Because the human form is the most successful generalized form in all nature. […] Besides that, our entire technology is based on the human form. […] It is easier to have robots imitate the human shape than to redesign radically the very philosophy of our tools.’ (171-172)”

In Caves of Steel Asimov creates a world where robots are simply tolerated. Robots are not necessary on a planet where there is an overpopulation problem – in fact, people are relegated to menial labor because of robot replacements. I don’t believe that Asimov mentions anywhere a job that only robots can do; they are just a technology that people don’t entirely accept.

I believe that we as well as the characters in Caves of Steel anthropomorphize robots. Robots are different from animals that can imitate human behavior, because robots were created specifically to duplicate human efficiency. As mentioned in the quote above, when Baley asks Dr. Gerrigel why robots are humanoid figures and not functional figures, he learns that it is because technology is based on human form. Human bodies aren’t geared toward certain specializations, but a robot can be designed to be. So, therefore, I believe we would anthropomorphize a robot because a robot is created in humankind’s image to do human work.

Part of Baley’s problem in accepting robots as just machines is because of their humanoid appearance, and that they’re replacing human workers; the reader also has this problem because we only see Baley’s personification of robots. While it’s possible to generalize an independent view of if a robot is or isn’t just a machine, it’s hard to hold that opinion while reading because we’re continually given Baley’s view. As Baley beings to see robots as more than just threatening human doppelgangers (especially after his talk with Dr. Fastolfe) the reader too is able to see robots as useful devices capable of things that humans aren’t.

If modern technology were capable of producing robots as sophisticated as R. Daneel Olivaw, I believe there would be protests against the creation of such a robot. Every day someone loses his or her job to another person who is willing to do that job for less money than the original worker. We see this phenomenon all too frequently – the outsourcing of jobs to cut costs. Asimov writes that robots were created as humanoid figures for economic reasons, so it’s natural to see robot workers as the next wave of replacement workers – only, this wave won’t need salary or healthcare. I see this as a very threatening prospect.

Are people possible of tolerating robots? I believe so, to a degree. Modern technology has produced robots capable of performing delicate surgery, with more precision than a human could replicate. There are also robots built to do work deep underwater, a place where the water pressure would crush a human. However, this area is also a grey area, because it would be easy to say “Oh, let’s replace worker X, since robot Y can do his work better,” which leads back into the very real possibility of jobs being outsourced to robots. I think it’s a very fine line on what humans will tolerate in a robot, and I believe that line will become very defined as robots become more mainstream and technologically advanced.

¹ – to attribute human form or personality to
intransitive senses : to attribute human form or personality to things not human source

“In considering Isaac Asimov’s Caves of Steel, write three or four paragraphs considering some or all of the following questions. To what extent can we learn what it means to be human by examining our creation of and reactions to robots? What can we learn from Tank about what we need in human communication? For example, does Tank respond as a human being would? Do you add emotive “pictures” (e.g. “happy” face) when you are sending email messages? Can we as humans communicate without indications of emotion or intention? Could you work side by side with R. Daneel Olivaw?”

What can we learn from Tank about what we need in human communication?

Tank shows that for humans to want to communicate with robots, the robots need to be engaging. Tank has a history and a personality. He’s interesting. He’s very unlike Asimov’s R. Sammy. Sammy was created to do work, not to interact with people. The people that visit Tank ask for more than just information and Tank is able to answer some of their queries. Through Tank, we can see that humans need a personality to communicate with – a person opposite them that can respond as the situation calls for, not with a scripted response plucked out of a database. Humans need organic minds, not mechanical minds, to communicate.

Can we as humans communicate without indications of emotion or intention?

I don’t think that humans could communicate without emotion or intention. Emotion is what makes a human human. That’s why Baley and the other humans in Caves of Steel have such a problem with robots – they are emotionless. They do not understand the concepts of justice or creativity; instead such things are modules loaded into the robot.

As for intention, that humans and robots share, but differently. Robots are singularly concentrated on their programmed intention, and do not stray from those intentions. Humans are different – they are affected by their surroundings, situations, and experiences, just as Baley is throughout Caves of Steel. So robots are still unfamiliar to humans even though both species have intentions, because of the different ways each race interprets them.

Could you work side by side with R. Daneel Olivaw?

I could not work with the R. Daneel Olivaw who we see in the beginning of Asimov’s Caves of Steel. Revealed to the reader as Daneel is through Baley’s biased eye, it’s hard to feel anything for him but what Baley feels – disgust, fear, and uncertainty. Additionally, I also had in mind the replacement of Vince with R. Sammy, which kept the thought of Daneel replacing Baley in my mind. However, as the novel went on, and I saw how Daneel was somewhat loyal to Baley, I became more comfortable with him myself. I think Asimov’s talent as a science fiction author shows in the way he’s able to make a reader, especially a modern reader, uncomfortable with a robot.