Coming from a career in computers that started in 1965, I can certainly claim a full appreciation and broad knowledge of computers and software (i.e. computers programs). All computers manufactured by humanity are machines. And only when the machine is energized and loaded with software can it perform any useful work; otherwise, they are all just expensive junk. That truly needs to be said, and understood, before proceeding with my brief review of this doco....
After watching both episodes, I'm of the opinion that the two words that sum up the entire presentation are: sociopolitical propaganda. Moreover, the targeted audience is, in all probability, only preteens and adolescents. Let me explain why.
First, the title is explicitly misleading. By using the term 'evolution', there is the strong suggestion that humanoid robots are developing in a manner analogous to human evolution. That is categorically incorrect, of course; as even this doco demonstrates, seemingly ingenuously.
But, worse comes: throughout this effort, both presenters - and others - constantly use the terms 'he' and 'she' when discussing humanoid robots; as though it's already acceptable to imbue a software-driven machine with a gender-biased attribute. For example, the famous Atlas from Boston Robotics is referred to as 'he'; Valkyrie, from NASA, is accorded the feminine gender. Obviously, neither is accurate: both are electromechanical machines with no sexual or gender attributes - other than what's in somebody's mind (and no - we won't go there, here).
Sure, humans have a puerile propensity for naming machines. Sure, the pronouns slip out easily, but for young minds watching, it's not only confusing: in this context, It's. Also. Dead. Wrong.
But wait: still even worse comes. Later in the presentation, there is talk about 'machine personality'; about 'robot consciousness'; even about feeling "sorry for her" when Valkyrie makes an error. Viewed objectively, there is never a need to "feel sorry" for a machine malfunction - only for the effect upon real humans when such occurs. How do you fancy, perhaps one day, asking your Genius TV how it feels about changing channels - and it responds: "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that!"?
The nadir, however, in this execrable, visual and verbal discourse arrives when we're told that "we must have a relationship with robots"; that after experiencing "Jack", the self-driving (so-called) Audi on a German autobahn, the smiling presenter is pleased to say: "The more I use, the more I trust!"; and that we must continue with robotic development until robots "understand themselves". Excuse me?
Granted, both presenters are careful to mention the machine based aspects of robots, and the many problems inherent in the development of these machines. Unfortunately, much of that cautionary patina is effectively drowned by the almost unqualified exuberance by one presenter, who should have known better, in my opinion; the other presenter was, over all, more cautious about this entire creeping revolution. For which, your teens and adolescents should be truly thankful - if they watch it. In sum, though, I don't recommend wasting two hours of your life when considering the many factual errors and implicit or explicit endorsements for near blind acceptance of Robotic Things To Come.
But, I give it two out of ten for having the audacious chutzpah to produce it.
March 25, 2018
After watching both episodes, I'm of the opinion that the two words that sum up the entire presentation are: sociopolitical propaganda. Moreover, the targeted audience is, in all probability, only preteens and adolescents. Let me explain why.
First, the title is explicitly misleading. By using the term 'evolution', there is the strong suggestion that humanoid robots are developing in a manner analogous to human evolution. That is categorically incorrect, of course; as even this doco demonstrates, seemingly ingenuously.
But, worse comes: throughout this effort, both presenters - and others - constantly use the terms 'he' and 'she' when discussing humanoid robots; as though it's already acceptable to imbue a software-driven machine with a gender-biased attribute. For example, the famous Atlas from Boston Robotics is referred to as 'he'; Valkyrie, from NASA, is accorded the feminine gender. Obviously, neither is accurate: both are electromechanical machines with no sexual or gender attributes - other than what's in somebody's mind (and no - we won't go there, here).
Sure, humans have a puerile propensity for naming machines. Sure, the pronouns slip out easily, but for young minds watching, it's not only confusing: in this context, It's. Also. Dead. Wrong.
But wait: still even worse comes. Later in the presentation, there is talk about 'machine personality'; about 'robot consciousness'; even about feeling "sorry for her" when Valkyrie makes an error. Viewed objectively, there is never a need to "feel sorry" for a machine malfunction - only for the effect upon real humans when such occurs. How do you fancy, perhaps one day, asking your Genius TV how it feels about changing channels - and it responds: "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that!"?
The nadir, however, in this execrable, visual and verbal discourse arrives when we're told that "we must have a relationship with robots"; that after experiencing "Jack", the self-driving (so-called) Audi on a German autobahn, the smiling presenter is pleased to say: "The more I use, the more I trust!"; and that we must continue with robotic development until robots "understand themselves". Excuse me?
Granted, both presenters are careful to mention the machine based aspects of robots, and the many problems inherent in the development of these machines. Unfortunately, much of that cautionary patina is effectively drowned by the almost unqualified exuberance by one presenter, who should have known better, in my opinion; the other presenter was, over all, more cautious about this entire creeping revolution. For which, your teens and adolescents should be truly thankful - if they watch it. In sum, though, I don't recommend wasting two hours of your life when considering the many factual errors and implicit or explicit endorsements for near blind acceptance of Robotic Things To Come.
But, I give it two out of ten for having the audacious chutzpah to produce it.
March 25, 2018
