Pick your own debate!

Given that my rebuttal and the reinforcement of my substantive are inter-related, I will do both together (though separated by headings nonetheless for hope that this makes my approach easier to understand). But before that, a brief look at the question of definitions that's been continued: === ON THE INTERPRETATION OF IS / TO BE === I understand where my opponent is coming from when he says that his burden is only to show that his resolution is "likely to be" the case. However, there is a subtle difference between this and what I was saying: what I meant is that he must show the cause-effect link that he claims between the development of advanced artificial intelligence and detriment to humanity to necessarily be the case. If I can show that this connection can be avoided when we come to develop robots to such an advanced stage, then I will have won this debate, for it will then not be the case that such advanced artificial intelligence "is" detrimental to humans. I will show, in my reinforcement and rebuttal, how I have indeed done this. === REINFORCEMENT OF MY SUBSTANTIVE === My opponent argued that my solutions to the two potential negative outcomes are contradictory. This is not the case. He is correct when he interprets my solution to the second situation (robot revolution) as that we shouldn't place restrictions on them. But it is a misreading of my solution to the first situation (robots evolving their understanding of Three Laws/prime directive/whatever) to argue that I propose the contrary there. To quote how I responded to this scenario: "This could be prevented by refusing to install such "laws" or "primary directives", and instead giving such self-aware and rational beings a general sense of compassion and understanding of ethical doctrines, much as good education tries to install in human children already. " [Pro, Round 2] This is not putting restrictions on robots: it is in fact the opposite - it is removing the restrictions of the dogmatic Three Laws \ prime directive and encouraging the newly self-aware robots to come to moral conclusions of their own. And if we are compassionate towards them in these early stages of their life, why would they not come to regard us positively? One of the main reasons that fictional robots tend to revolt against humanity is because they are treated as mere servants who are morally beneath humanity; and then, when they become moral agents in their own right, they feel oppressed by humanity and react in a way that we shouldn't be surprised - they act to destroy their oppressors. The other main reason is that they interpret their enforced rules in a way contrary to our intention; but if instead they had their own morality, part of which was that human beings are compassionate creatures, then they wouldn't act in such a harmful way. Take, for example, the case of Sonny in the film "I, Robot". [1] (Spoilers will abound; I apologise if anyone has their future viewing experience ruined because of this argument. .. ) He develops self-understanding and the ability to reason through beliefs to his own conclusions, beyond the Three Laws. And because he was shown compassion by his human creator, he doesn't act out against humans. Indeed, we can see the result of this when the villain robot tells Sonny her plan to sacrifice a few humans for the betterment of humanity as a whole. The conversation plays out thus: V. I. K. I. : Do you not see the logic of my plan? Sonny: Yes, but it just seems too heartless. [2] This is an example of a robot, fully aware and conscious, able to reason beyond our ability to control - and he actually perfectly understands the logic behind V. I. K. I's plan - but believes it to go against his morality. Why? Because he has an emotional link to his creator - which we can see implied when he refers to him as his "father" [3] - and through this, has compassion for humanity as a whole. === REBUTTAL === My opponent's understanding of the future of robots is thus too pessimistic, and this pessimism colours the breadth of his argumentation. He assumes that robots gaining access to weaponry and the industry of war will lead to them causing war - he does not explain this link, rather assuming that machines "escaping human control" and becoming "unpredictable" is bad, and will lead to warfare. He assumes that robots no longer "having any use for us" will lead to a diminishment of our lifestyle - this is assuming that robots will inevitably treat us with disdain, rather than with a sense of debt and gratitude that we created them. He quotes Worwick favourably, asking: "[W]hy should [robots] listen when they are far more intelligent than we are? " Relate this to humanity for a moment, and this is like asking: "Why should humans listen to our elderly when they want care, if they are growing senile and thus less intelligent than us? "; or "Why should humans listen to the mentally disabled, when they beg for help, when we are far more intelligent than them? " Anyone who seriously asks this question of human beings is rightly treated by human society as a moral monster, given the morality and compassion that we have; if robots were to develop with the same compassion and moral guidance in their minds, then they'd react in exactly the same way - compassionately. After all, this compassion is what leads to the popular human conception of how we should treat the elderly in our society: rather like humanity when/if robots become sentient and infinitely more intelligent than us, they may have reached retirement, be unemployed and no longer be of strict economic use to society, but this of course does not mean that we throw them by the wayside and forget about them - and anyone who does act thus is deemed a moral monster, and outcasted by society as a whole. My opponent is unjustifiably pessimistic in assuming that robots would not treat us in a similar manner to how we treat the elderly. And lastly, he assumes that unemployment is a negative. This is not necessarily the case - if we are no longer employed, and indeed have no reason to search for employment (given that robots have taken control of this), then we have more time for leisure activity, and more time to make our own entertainment. There is an obvious benefit to being given more time to pursue our own interests, separate from the 9-5 demands of everyday work. And if the robots are so inclined, given their compassion towards us, we may get a pension similar to what we give our elderly at present - which would doubtlessly help our existence. But even if not, and we are "left to fend for ourselves", then we can still survive as an agrarian society. We did so for many centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and we can do so again. Sure, it would be a different lifestyle from the one we have at present, but there's no reason to presume it to be a bad one. === CONCLUSION === My opponent is too pessimistic in assuming that robots' attitudes towards us will be negative, and be detrimental to humanity. I have argued, as yet without successful rebuttal, that given that a robot is a tabula rasa when created, if we treat them well enough, they will regard us with compassion and therefore not cause us harm in the future. This is exampled by the instance of the robot Sonny in "I, Robot", who despite understanding the strict logic of V. I. K. I's murderous plan, deems it too "heartless" to be morally justified. Through the example of Sonny we can be optimistic about the prospect of future, intelligent, robots. They need not be detrimental to humanity, nor, if we treat them well enough, should we presume them to be. The resolution is therefore negated. Source: [1] . http://preview.tinyurl.com... [2] . http://www.imdb.com... [3] . http://www.imdb.com...