Terminator vs Planet of the Apes
Looking at current trends (cutting-edge Japanese human-interacting robots) seems to indicate we're heading for the kind of future envisioned/cautioned against by The Matrix, Battlestar Galactica or The Terminator. Or even Westworld!
But I have a theory that this Japanese experiment will be short-lived: free-ranging robots and even self-driven vehicles (with human occupants) on open road systems (as opposed to contained transit systems, e.g. trains) will never become a widespread reality as long as insurance companies are required to sign-off on any related injuries or claims caused by manufactured devices.
If you look at current vehicle insurance, you can see that insurance companies offload as much of the claim as possible onto claimants in the form of deductibles and personal liabilty.
As soon as you take out the human liability element, the insurance company is left holding the bag. They'll pass on the costs to the device manufacturers, who'll pass it on to the consumer, making the technology prohibitively expensive for the forseeable future. The trick would be to convince an insurer that the devices were REALLY safe, i.e. no chance of anyone being hurt. Which means finding an insurance company where no-one's heard of The Matrix or The Terminator, etc.
But what about Planet of the Apes? If an animal (even one that's been significantly genetically engineered) hurts a human when is the breeder ever held liable? The legal repurcussions would fall on the owner and the animal itself, which would most likely be 'destroyed.' Selective breeding and animal husbandry have surrounded humans with working animals for thousands of years. Because of the precedence set, and the legal issues involved, isn't it more likely that humans will produce a workforce of trained animals than an army of robotic minions?
What do you think? Are we heading for a future with robotic A.I. or genetically engineered animal servants?
But I have a theory that this Japanese experiment will be short-lived: free-ranging robots and even self-driven vehicles (with human occupants) on open road systems (as opposed to contained transit systems, e.g. trains) will never become a widespread reality as long as insurance companies are required to sign-off on any related injuries or claims caused by manufactured devices.
If you look at current vehicle insurance, you can see that insurance companies offload as much of the claim as possible onto claimants in the form of deductibles and personal liabilty.
As soon as you take out the human liability element, the insurance company is left holding the bag. They'll pass on the costs to the device manufacturers, who'll pass it on to the consumer, making the technology prohibitively expensive for the forseeable future. The trick would be to convince an insurer that the devices were REALLY safe, i.e. no chance of anyone being hurt. Which means finding an insurance company where no-one's heard of The Matrix or The Terminator, etc.
But what about Planet of the Apes? If an animal (even one that's been significantly genetically engineered) hurts a human when is the breeder ever held liable? The legal repurcussions would fall on the owner and the animal itself, which would most likely be 'destroyed.' Selective breeding and animal husbandry have surrounded humans with working animals for thousands of years. Because of the precedence set, and the legal issues involved, isn't it more likely that humans will produce a workforce of trained animals than an army of robotic minions?
What do you think? Are we heading for a future with robotic A.I. or genetically engineered animal servants?
No comments have been added yet.
