Robert McNeil: Robots are fine so long as there’s a kill switch

They’re going to take thousands of middle-ranking jobs in Scotia Minor. They’re going to help kids with their homework. They’re going to have their legal status defined by the European Union.

The latter in particular interested me, as it was billed as setting out a new etiquette between us and the machines.

However, this transpired to be not so much about us saying “please” and “thank you” as them knowing their place.

All we need to know is where the off button is, while dinging into the machines’ heids that, if they start acting the goat, they’ll be switched off with no supper.

In my imagination, you’re all laughing along with me uproariously, as people do in the jolly tavern scenes of old movies. But, in reality, I know you’re frightened and reading this under the duvet.

That is because you have no faith in your fellow man and burd. You know what they’re like. Remember when they said computers would mean we’d all work only one-third as hard?

Reality: they cut two-thirds of the jobs and made the remaining third work three times as hard. You say: “Aye, but that’s capitalism, ken?” Alas, I fear it is human nature. You volunteer for this.

I keep meeting anti-trade union people who complain that we should all get together and do something about society’s problems years after – believing all the “winter of discontent” rubbish in the employers’ press – they supported emasculating the organisations that used to bring us together and protect our conditions.

If you think how easily the capitalists play us, what hope have we got against the robots?

Soon, they could be running the country. Ah, you’re warming to them now. Well, what if they end up writing the news?

You say: “Given that much of it is fake news, what difference would it make?” Well, for a start, the only thing left would be work like mine: fake comment.

I will grant the beasties this: they might be able to create prosperity. Broadly speaking, after considering all the facts, I am in favour of prosperity.

In particular, it raises the prospect of a universal basic income, an idea I love just for the reaction it brings on the faces of the unimaginative and capitalist-inclined.

You know – those smug, pompous “realists”.

However, looking realistically at robots, perhaps we’re being pessimistic. Perhaps they’ll be lovable like C-3PO out of Game of Thrones or whatever it is.

I will be quite candid with you here: I would like a butler and a maid, particularly if the former supported Hibs (so that we could have an intelligent discussion) and the latter knew how to put on a duvet cover without collapsing in tears (I speak from experience).

But what if they start asking us questions like: “What is your purpose on Earth?” Or: “Which human pillock created a system in which full-backs now also do the jobs of wingers?”

We’d have to programme them not to bother us in this way. Top expert Dr Tarek Besold, of Bremen University, has pointed out that a robot might be able to play chess but not draughts if it hadn’t been programmed for it.

Even I, a self-styled human, can play draughts.

The problem with programming concerns a curious phenomenon endemic among humanity: nutters.

Think of any evening class, off-peak bus or dinner-party: always one nutter. It is an iron law.

And it would only take one nutter in the Artificial Intelligence community to create a robot that could destroy us all.

You say: “Oh aye, AI.” That is a good point, well made.

The only solution is close monitoring of the AI community, making sure that everyone involved in it has at least an O-grade in computers and a clean, current driving licence.

In the meantime, we should be panicking more than we are, if we want to remain top dog on the controversial planet Earth.

From panic comes strength and a willingness to lash out blindly, which is really our only hope.

In the meantime, let our watchword be: think not what you can do for your robots; rather, think what your robots can do for you.