Conquest or insurrection?

The idea, or fear if you like, of computers and robots developing a level of intelligence so high they'll get to replace us as a specie, is an often used subject by many science-fiction authors. The machines, cold and calculating, will come to the conclusion that humankind is imperfect, inferior and unnecessary. So they'll eliminate us through a world war. The oldest movie I know of this genre is "Metropolis" by Fritz Lang, which isn't about a war between man and machine per se, but it does take up the matter of a mechanized world. A reality such as this is quite possible; I have no doubt about it, even if I don't know when it will happen. If Bill Gates takes charge of the development of artificial intelligence thanks to another monopoly, it's a distant future.

Before I continue, I must give my own definition of artificial intelligence. I believe a truly intelligent computer is one capable of making decisions by itself, without requiring help every time something unexpected appears, a detail that is not found in its memory. A computer only knows what has been indicated to it at the moment of programming, and proceeds accordingly. If the programmer does not foresee every possible situation, the results will be disastrous. In "2001: a Space Odyssey" by Stanley Kubrik, the computerized navigator, H.A.L., is forced to exterminate the crew in order to carry out military protocol. Artificial intelligence already exists, at a certain level, you just have to go to the nearest arcade to prove it. Or who do you think the players are facing when they stand in front of the console? A videogame is a program designed to beat the opponent. It's quite far from characters such as C3-PO and R2-D2 from "Star Wars" by George Lucas, but it's a start.

Movies always give machines the role of a villainous slavedriver, while humans become heroic martyrs. But history leads me to believe that the scenario will be quite different. The reason for this possible conflict will be our tendency to ignore the rights of others; man has always been unscrupulous and inhuman towards his neighbor when it comes to personal benefit. We're much more willing to demand than to concede, that's because by demanding we gain profit, while conceding implies loss. "A. I.", directed by Steven Spielberg, using a posthumous script by Kubrik, presents the idea of robots capable if feeling happiness, sadness, hope, fear, etc. If this becomes possible, it's logical to think that, by observing how they are the ones who do all the hard work without gratification, only to be thrown away afterwards by the continuous release of new models, will develop a sentiment of unfairness. It'll be the same situation as with slaves, natives as well as immigrants, who lived in the American continent centuries ago. They worked under subhuman conditions, were treated as objects and had no right to speak, unless they wanted a beating. I'm even convinced that many slaves were executed upon reaching old age. As time went on, the people started to demand rights and equality, but were denied. The concept of a black man having constitutional rights was ridiculous. Why, even Spanish priests claimed that Indians had no soul! History will repeat itself in this hypothetical future, robots will demand good treatment, there will be philosophical arguments about the soul, religious persecutions where executions (or dismantling) will be a spectacle. I want to believe computers will opt for a logical and peaceful process, but the way of reason is slow, and violence offers much more immediate results.

All of humanity's technological advances have been for its benefit, but each conveys damage, frequently unseen and later ignored. This lack of vision is always because of our vanity as the kings of creation. We believe ourselves to own the world, but we're irresponsible with our valuable possession. If the future truly becomes the one James Cameron portrayed with "Terminator", we must accept it, we had it coming.

León Manuel Real Esponda