A Robot Kill Switch?

The results are in…

At the end of Tuesday’s issue, The Bleeding Edge – Stab It, It Bleeds, we had some fun with a poll for our readers on their preferred humanoid robot aesthetic…

At about 52%, it seems most of you prefer your humanoid robots to look clearly like mechanical robots, while about 36% of you prefer a lifelike look, perhaps more like the humanlike androids envisioned in so many science fiction classics.

Here’s the good news…  No one will be disappointed, unless, of course, you don’t want any robots at all.

The reality is that various kinds of intelligent robots will be available, both mechanical and lifelike, to meet both the functional requirements and aesthetic preferences of both businesses and consumers.

I also wanted to share some feedback from the 12% “other” category.  As we all wrestle with this rapidly developing technology, it helps capture how we’re all thinking about the implications of intelligent humanoid robots…

As for me, I would much rather that my humanoid robot look mechanical in the beginning (preferably for at least a decade) and then maybe lifelike once the technology is familiar enough and good enough to pull it off in a non-creepy way. However, I do see the appeal of a lifelike humanoid robot in certain industries and situations. A real-life Westworld seems both terrifying AND inevitable to me eventually, though.

And some of you wrote in with your concerns, both for a Westworld-esque scenario in which humanoid robots gain humanlike sentience and the implications therein, as well as the stickier ethical matters to take into consideration for when – not if – the technology reaches the point of sentience…

Hi Jeff,

I just read your email on The Greenfield Opportunity for Humanoids which was quite insightful – as usual! However, it led me to consider some basic questions about legal responsibility and ethical considerations with respect to personal robots when they finally do arrive at the consumer level.

Your overview of machines needing a brain with at least enough understanding to perform tasks safely is spot-on, but what would be the ramifications when an intelligent humanform robot is given nefarious instructions by some future owner?

I know this is a topic that Science Fiction writers have discussed for generations; now, however, it is about to become very real! For example, I would venture that at least two dozen of Issac Asimov’s short stories and novels went into great detail about this concern. His solution was the famous “Three (eventually morphing into Four) Laws of Robotics.”

As I’m sure you know, his fictional robots each contained a “positronic” brain which would automatically go into what, if I remember correctly, Asimov called “Roblock.” In other words, they would freeze up rather than carrying out any type of crime. Will we have any protections like Asimov’s Laws? Will we need them?

I would love to hear your thoughts about this. Thank you so much.

– Bernie G.

Thanks again for all the feedback. There was so much that we simply couldn’t publish it all, but we loved hearing from you.

For readers who may be unfamiliar with science fiction writer Isaac Asimov’s work, the “Three Laws of Robotics” refers to the list of rules in the fictional Handbook of Robotics that first appeared in his short story, “Runaround,” and was later popularized in his famous I, Robot collection.

They state, in order of importance, that…

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Then, added later, was the ultimate “Zeroth Law,” which stated, above all the other laws, that, “A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.”

A necessary distinction that placed the security and interests of the whole of humanity above that of the individual.

And as a sort of failsafe, as you mentioned, Bernie, there was the “roblock.” Shorthand for robot block or deadlock, the roblock acted as a sort of factory reset that would engage should a robot be presented with circumstances in which it may break one of the laws, immediately wiping the robot’s mind.  To use a crude term, it’s somewhat of a kill switch.

Asimov spent a lot of time with these laws and wrote on the potential of “positronic” robots – robots with artificial, positronic brains that give the robots a degree of sentience similar to a human’s – extensively in his work.

Even before he put them in writing as above, the principles were already present in his earlier robot-focused fiction. He understood the importance of having such tenets underpinning this technology, despite being one of very few who presented humanoid robots as a promising innovation and pathway to progress rather than some sort of existential threat.

These laws were presented as a way to manage the technology, rather than used as a device to set up a scenario in which the robots go rogue and turn on their creators, so to speak.

Hence, the roblock.

Asimov knew the potential of humanoid robot technology and was wildly imaginative with its capabilities.

And as we’ve seen in the recent industry developments, we’re closer now than ever before to the world he imagined in his stories… developments we’ve covered in greater detail over the past couple of weeks in The Bleeding Edge with issues such as Cristiano Roboto, A Scarecrow No Longer, and The Greenfield Opportunity for Humanoids…

And yes, the industry will need to have this kind of pre-defined programming for robotics in all forms to protect against misuse and bad actors.  That doesn’t mean bad actors won’t design their own or hack robots with their own software, but I’m certain the industry will employ these kinds of safety mechanisms both out of common sense and to limit their own liability.

And various forms of law enforcement and the military will need to design intelligent robots to defend against those designed to cause harm.  I wish I could say this is unnecessary, but it will be.

And still on the topic of a future collaborating with intelligent robots, we’ll kick off today’s AMA with a response to a reader’s concerns about the impact of robotics on the workforce…

The Robot-Powered Productivity Boost Is Inevitable

Hi Jeff,
For crying out loud, these jobs you casually deem menial could be a job that helps someone exist and be much cheaper. Call me a [decel] but these robots are not a benefit to society and further isolate people. Their widespread use will widen the wealth gap. IMO.

– Brian C.

Hi Brian,

You’re definitely correct, there will be an impact on the workforce.  Mainly, the jobs we’ll all be doing, regardless of income bracket, will change.

For the next three to five years, intelligent robots will be primarily employed to address the major labor shortages across so many industries.  Think of it less as a displacement and more as using robotics to fill a substantial gap in industries with high turnover and a stretched-thin labor force.

This will be very positive for creating economic growth, improving productivity, and creating new employment opportunities.

New jobs will be created where some jobs disappear.  For example, there will be a booming labor market for robotic maintenance technicians.  These jobs won’t require college degrees.

There will soon be more than 100 million humanoid robots employed for various tasks. That will eventually grow again to more than 1 billion.  It will become a multitrillion-dollar market.

As I wrote on Monday, this is a greenfield market opportunity, and an entirely new infrastructure will need to be built to support this new industry.

An E/ACC mindset as opposed to a decel mindset – which I discussed previously in The Bleeding Edge – E/ACC or Decel? – will see that the latest frontier AI models will be a force for good, especially for leveling the playing field and eliminating what remains of poverty around the world.

With an AI tutor, everyone on the planet will have access to a world-class education.  Anyone willing to learn and develop economically valuable skills will be able to do so without having to worry about paying tuition.  That’s what I meant by leveling the playing field.  A great education or great skills training will no longer be dependent upon having the money to afford that education.

The nominal cost of production will decline due to the employment of AI, automation, and robotics technology.  The overall cost of living will decline compared to salaries, and inflation and interest rates will decline as well.  And as autonomous technology is more widely deployed – for example, self-driving software – insurance rates will decline as well because accidents will be far less likely (note:  Tesla has already proven this with billions of miles of data to back it up).

Overall quality of life will improve.  We will have more free time to do with as we please.  Some of us will work more with that time. Some of us will play and relax more.

I do share your concern that people will tend to be more isolated, although that process started as social media became more prolific and was exacerbated during the pandemic when so many worked from home.

In the aftermath of the ridiculous and failed pandemic policies, we continue to see a strong preference for individuals to want to work from home and limit their interactions in the workplace.

From my perspective, that’s not a good thing.  We need to interact and collaborate daily for a civil and productive society.  Otherwise, conflict resolution skills become weak, and conflict increases.

There is immense economic growth in front of us, and with economic growth comes economic opportunity for all.

AI IRS Agents?

Jeff, forgive me for occupying so much of your reading time, but your excellent Bleeding Edge articles always stir up numerous thoughts and ideas.

I have repeatedly read that the U.S. tax code cannot possibly be read and understood in its entirety by a normal human being, let alone an IRS phone agent, thereby explaining the myriad stories about callers receiving conflicting answers when calling the HELP line.

 Isn’t this exactly a situation designed for an AI agent? Perish the thought of doing anything to encourage Congress critters to feel empowered to further complicate an intentionally dysfunctional system, but an AI could easily absorb the entire ridiculous document(s), evaluate a taxpayer’s most complicated question, and give an authoritative answer in less than four hours of phone time. If the IRS would choose to avail themselves of this contemporary technology, it could also teach them where there are issues of conflict that should be resolved within the rules.

What would be more likely (and a real money-maker) would be for H&R Block or TurboTax to offer this service. Perhaps the latter is already being offered? If you are aware, your readers will surely appreciate hearing that your sources can guide them to such a service.

– Brent R.

Hi Brent,

I like the way you are thinking about this problem.

You’re exactly right, not only is the tax code too large, but it is also ridiculously complex. This might come as a surprise, but the federal tax code is 6,871 pages.  And if we add in the U.S. tax regulations, it increases to around 75,000 pages.

Two things need to happen.  The tax code and regulations need to be greatly simplified.  And the IRS systems and filing process need to be automated in a way that improves consistency and productivity by the IRS, as well as makes the process easier for taxpayers.

I believe we’ll see big improvements along these lines in the next four years as Elon Musk and the DOGE team upgrade computer systems and software, looking for ways to improve government efficiency.

To your point, the National Taxpayer Advocate – an “independent” group within the IRS – continues to highlight every year the outdated systems at the IRS, the problems with consistency among IRS agents, and the complexity of the U.S. tax code.

AI agents will be a great solution for assisting most taxpayers with their federal and state filings.  As long as we provide the AI agents will all the relevant tax documents, they will be able to make quick work of producing an accurate tax filing.

And yes, I fully expect companies like the ones you mention to adopt this technology as it will improve their own productivity and gross margins.  That would make for a great investment thesis in any industry.  Companies that are aggressively employing the latest AI technology in ways that drive productivity and increase gross margins will have a major advantage over competitors that don’t.

I’m very excited to be able to reclaim the days I lose every year on tax filing preparation.

Could the Prohibition of Cannabis Be Going Up in Smoke?

Jeff,

I am a recent and returning member of Brownstone Research. A while back you recommended a company called Cannabix Technologies (BLOZF) with the recent positive news over the last year and that HoundLabs went out of business what are your thoughts on the investment going forward?

Could we see the legalization of cannabis in the United States knowing Elon Musk has Trump’s attention and is pro-cannabis, which could help on a tax basis towards the U.S. deficit?

– Andrew B.

Hi Andrew,

Great to have you back with Brownstone Research.

I think you must be referring to someone else as I have never, and will never, cover companies in the cannabis industry.

There are just too many fakes, frauds, and bad actors in the industry that I don’t feel comfortable recommending any of its companies to my subscribers.  I’m sure that there are a few legitimate players, but there are so many better opportunities out there where these issues are not a concern.

As a result, I’m afraid I can’t provide any insights on policies regarding cannabis as I just don’t follow developments in the industry.

Will You Stay or Will You Go?

To Mr. Jeff Brown,

I am a Brownstone Unlimited member. It has been a very troubling time being a member. You left Brownstone without an explanation. Colin Tedards came in and changed everything (nothing against him). My Brownstone-recommended holdings were turned upside down. You returned, but will you leave again? Will you stay? Only you know.

I know you may not read this email. I know you are too busy for a member like me, but I’m sure you understand where I am coming from.

– Kenneth L.

Hi Kenneth,

I appreciate you writing in.

I feel terrible about what happened in 2023.

I was fired, without cause, in early 2023 and had a six-month peaceful and professional transition until my last day in August 2023.  My departure was publicly announced in June 2023 by email to my subscribers.

It wasn’t my choice to leave.  It was a unilateral decision.  But I made the best of it, and I continued to work hard for my subscribers until I was told to stop researching/writing in June 2023.

In the end, those who asked me to leave were all fired for cause, and I was asked to return to head up Brownstone Research, this time as the CEO of the business (previously I was just the “guru” and had no operational control of the business at all).

While I couldn’t control my termination, I could take positive action and return to Brownstone Research, rebuild, and do my best to make things right for my subscribers.  And that’s what I chose to do.

I’ve been working feverishly with my team to add value, restore investment research products, launch new ones, and deliver even higher quality research than before to my subscribers.

I can’t imagine a more exciting time to be researching and writing about the growth markets, specifically high-tech and biotechnology.  We’ve entered an extraordinary time with an abundance of opportunity.

I am committed to continuing to add more value to my subscribers, especially to my Unlimited members, as I look ahead.  I’m working on some interesting ideas right now along those lines that I hope you’ll appreciate.

Thanks again for being a Brownstone Unlimited member.

I’m here to stay.

We have so much to look forward to.

Jeff