And there is a lot of politics.

One of the weakest areas is the political analysis behind the stories. For example, a Soviet Lunar rover is described as being "daubed with the sickle and hammer" - but there's no derogatory mention of the stars, stipes, and eagles on American craft. Similarly we hear about "the Soviet plans to invade Mars proceeded unabated" - there's no deriding description of the American plans to colonise various planets. The efforts of the European Space Agency described as "[m]ore than fifty industrial contractors from fifteen nations were involved in construction. Safe to say, it was a logistical nightmare." - while ignoring the various back-room deals that led to the American space programme being distributed around their country and their resultant logistical problems.

It isn't relentlessly pro-American (there's lots of descriptions of their failures) but it feels a bit one-sided.

There are some gorgeous photos spread throughout the book. Sadly, the ebook relegates most of them to the end rather than interspersing them with the text. At least one of the images is incorrect although, thankfully, the attribution hyperlinks to the correct photo on NASA's site.

I'm being a bit down on the book. It is a decent enough look at all the problems faced by space agencies as they tried to send machines into the void. For those of us in the computer industry, it is depressing to continually read about how we're often the weakest link:

On 2 September, a computer command was sent to Phobos 1 to turn on the gamma ray spectrometer. A single hyphen had been left out of the code, transforming it into an order for Phobos 1 to shut down. There was no way to turn it back on.

Yikes! The book is full of titbits like that - minor errors which led to major catastrophes.

It's a good starting point for anyone with an interest in space exploration and how technical and political challenges can be overcome.

The stories are mostly dark and brooding, with the macabre turn. They're fun - but the constant theme is "what if I, an intelligent person, got trapped in the brain of a dullard?" Robots who are self-aware of their limitations reveal to us how terrifying dementia must be.

We meet robots who are reassured that they are without sin, and those which long to sin. Perhaps malicious dæmons reside in their programming just as bugs reside in our souls?

A fine collection.

But, when given the choice, we often ditch humans for something better.

Some random examples…

• Radio DJs
  • Does anyone actually miss witless chatter between records? Use of Spotify suggests a large number of us don't need a Human to introduce the next record. Or hold a phone-in. Or read out dates of a gig.
  • We might prefer a human to curate the music we listen to. But is AI any worse than Payola?
• TV continuity announcers
  • Anyone in the Netflix / TiVo era miss them?
  • Autoplaying trailers may be annoying, but they don't need a presenter.
• Supermarket checkouts
  • I know some people miss a natter with the person working the tills. But those of us behind them don't miss waiting!
    • (Yes, there ought to be better facilities for lonely people. No, the Tesco isn't best placed to serve that need.)
  • They often need a human when things go wrong.
• Meter reading
  • I don't miss a stranger poking through my house to read my gas meter. I'm more comfortable with corporate surveillance than relying on a Criminal Background Check for a fleet of individuals.
• In the workplace
  • I don't need a PA to type up my memos. Or a Human pushing a tea cart.
  • I let a robot check my spelling, but I often ask a human to check whether my documents are clear & readable.
• At home
  • I don't employ a maid to wash my dishes, or to sweep the floors. Robots have quietly and successfully replaced them.
  • OK, a microwave dinner isn't as good as a home-cooked meal. But it's a hell of a lot quicker and convenient.

I know some of you miss Humans Doing Things. But I really don't. I don't think the organic premium is worth paying for most things.

I'm not saying you're wrong for not feeling the same way as me, obviously.

There are lots of things Humans are good at. And some things for which they are uniquely suited. Similarly, Robots are experts in some areas. And, where they're not perfect, they're cheap and consistent.

Humans should know their place.

Let's first define what we mean by Queer. This usually means outside of binary gender and/or someone who is attracted to the same sex - what's commonly referred to as LGBT+. Feel free to supply your own definition.

As for what we mean by AI - let's go with "mechanical or non-biological autonomous being." That's probably wide enough - but do please suggest better definitions.

So is a gay/lesbian robot one who is attracted to other robots? Or to humans with a similar gender? Let's go with yes to all of the above.

Do robots have gender?

Humans love categorising things - especially inanimate objects. Some languages divide every noun into male a female. Why? Humans gonna human.

The television is female in French - "la télévision" - but masculine in German - "der Fernseher". Stupid humans and their pathetic meaty brains.

Nevertheless, humans can usually look at a human-ish thing and assign it a specific gender.

Maschinenmensch - from Metropolis - is a Gynoid (as distinct from an Android). "She" has a feminine body shape and that's enough for most people to go on.

HAL - from 2001 - is just a disembodied voice. But it definitely has a male voice. Is there any attraction between Hal and Dave? I doubt it - but it's an interesting reading of their toxic relationship.

Robosexual?

Kryten - from Red Dwarf - is coded as male. All the characters refer to him with male pronouns. Under British comedy rules, he is also "camp" - an over-the-top and stereotypically effeminate man.

Kryten is sexually attracted to other household appliances.

But... Kryten's "perfect mate" is a distinctly female Gynoid. (Fun fact - Camille and Kryten are played by real-life wife and husband Judy Pascoe and Robert Llewelyn!)

C-3P0 - another British campbot - is clearly in love with R2-D2 - whether or not that love is reciprocated is hard to say.

Threepio and Artoo may behave like an old married couple - but the astromech has an eye for the ladies.

I say "ladies" - just because a robot is pink, doesn't mean it's a girl. (KT-10 is a girl though.)

Robots attracted to humans

There are several examples of "female" computers falling in love with male humans - and a disturbing number of sex-worker bots - but it is much harder to find queer examples.

The Tick has an AI in a boat. The AI is male and attracted to other men. Who may or may not be boats.

Is the boat programmed to be gay? Are his desires hardwired? Are yours?

Remember "Alien: Resurrection"? Winona Ryder played the robot "Call" who has a "suggestive" relationship with Ripley. As this ship video demonstrates.

Battlestar Galactica has some bi-sexual Cylons

Apparently there's a few gay Autobots and gay Decepticons in Transformers.

TV show "Humans" has one of the robots fall in love with a human

Ambiguity

Is Rachael from Blade Runner a robot, or a lesbian?

Clearly, yes.

Gender reassignment

It's possible for you to swap the gender of your Voice Assistant in real life. Your GPS can have a male voice one day, and you can swap it to female the next.

I couldn't find many examples in fiction which an AI changed gender.

Back to Red Dwarf again. In the series 3 opener "Backwards" it is revealed that Holly (a computer with a male face) fell in love with Hilly (a computer with a female face). And subsequently performed a head sex change. Although she kept the name Holly.

The entire crew of Red Dwarf accept this. They never comment on it, nor disparage her.

Basically, what I'm saying is this: if you can't accept your trans friends, you're literally a worse human than Arnold Judas Rimmer.

What happens when a robot begins to question its creators? What would be the consequences of creating a robot with a sense of humour? Or the ability to lie? How do we truly tell the difference between man and machine? In "I, Robot", Asimov sets out the Three Laws of Robotics – designed to protect humans from their robotic creations – and pushes them to their limits and beyond.

After attending a lecture on the ethics of self-driving cars, I decided to re-read Asimov's "I, Robot".

Any discussion of robots killing people inevitably returns to the supposed wisdom of the "3 laws of robotics".

I argue that the "3 laws" should be considered harmful.

Let's remind ourselves of the laws:

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 Laws.

The first thing to note is that these are a literary device - not a technical device. Killer robots are boring sci-fi. The interesting sci-fi is looking at "good" robots which inexplicably go bad. "I, Robot" is essentially a collection of entertaining logic puzzles. Æsthetics are not a good basis on which to build an algorithm for behaviour.

The second thing to note is that the laws are vague. What do we mean by "harm"? This is the lynchpin of one of the stories where (spoilers!) a telepathic robot avoids causing psychological pain.

Most people can't deal with complexity. Here's a common complaint:

Archimedes’ Principle: 67 words The Ten Commandments: 179 words The Gettysburg Address: 286 words The Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words The US government regulations on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words As circulated by email from everyone's "kooky" relative

The claim above is utter nonsense - but laws are complex. The Ten Commandments may be short - but they cause a huge amount of ambiguity. What does "Thou shalt not kill" cover? Gallons of ink has been spilled interpreting those four words. Ironically, blood has been shed trying to resolve those ambiguities.

Would it have been helpful to have, from the start, 30,000 words explaining exactly what each rule meant?

Thirdly, these aren't natural laws. Too many people - including scientists - seem to think that these are hard-wired into robots! I've had conversations with otherwise rational people who haven't quite grasped that these aren't baked into the fabric of existence.

The "laws" are a harmful meme. That's testament to the power of Asimov's writing. His stories have infected every discussion of robotics and ethics. Even though we know it is fiction, something deep inside us recognises them as a necessary part of creating "acceptable" robots.

The 3 laws are brilliant for story-telling, but lousy for AI policy making.

Or this:

Broadly human, but mostly metal.

Occasionally, I get non anthropocentric answers like this mule:

Or even something stark and industrial like this:

One is experimental, the other is rarely seen in day-to-day life.

The truth is, we're surrounded by robots. This is what a robot looks like:

Terence Eden is on Mastodon

@edent

The robots are coming for your jobs.

People think robots looks like C-3PO. That's an inefficient design, driven by anthrocentric thinking.

🤖 > 👨 pic.x.com/q38nub90nd

---

Each of these robots has "stolen" a job from a human. Multiple humans, probably.

I'm old enough to remember when a tea lady would push a trolley around an office and sell the workers snacks and hot drinks. Nowadays, there's a machine to pour out a coffee and another one to dispense chocolates.

You see them every day and you treat them as part of the furniture.

Just as a car is not a horseless carriage, robots are not metal men.

I also got upset at C-3PO being dismantled in The Empire Strikes Back, and at Johnny 5 being beaten up in Short Circuit 2. But both those characters have anthropomorphic features - bipedeal, two eyes, hands, and - most importantly - voices. R2-D2 has none of those. He isn't recognisably human in any conventional sense. Yet, undeniably, he (and R2's gender is a whole other topic!) is "cute". He has a silly, sing-song voice, a mischievous personality, and has a bumbling means of locomotion. Just like a pet.

This brings me to the topic of war. Naturally.

Watch this video of Boston Dynamics' "Big Dog" robot and tell me what your reaction is to the event at 35 seconds.

Most people I know have a visceral reaction to it. While obviously a robot - our primitive monkey brains see it as a living creature. When someone inflicts pain on it, our emotional response kicks in before our rational response.

That's the reaction that people have after experiencing the robot for less than a minute. What would happen if you spent every day working with a similar robot?

As it turns out, humans form very strong emotional bonds with their robot "pets".

Julie Carpenter, from the University of Washington, recently published a thesis entitled "The Quiet Professional: An Investigation of U.S. Military Explosive Ordnance Disposal Personnel Interactions With Everyday Field Robots." The investigation is whether or not having an emotional attachment to an EOD (explosive ordinance disposal) robot might influence the decisions made by the robot's operator to the extent that it could alter the outcome of a mission. Soldiers Can Get Emotionally Attached to Robots, and That May Not Be a Good Thing

How emotionally attached, you ask?

Some of the grunts I worked with lost a MARCBOT and they awarded him a Purple Heart, BSM, and they did a full burial detail with 21 gun salute at Taji. Some people got upset about it but those little bastards can develop a personality, and they save so many lives. mastersterling on Reddit

One suggestion is that robots be designed to have less personality. I think that's the wrong approach. These robots need more personality.

It's rather easy to imagine enemy soldiers taking pot-shots at a bog standard robot - this bomb disposal unit looks totally devoid of personality; no one would have any qualms about shooting it.

Suppose it was designed to look - for want of a better word - cute? Large eyes, a dopey grin on its face, floppy ears, and a brightly patterned covering.

Instead of sending killer robots like this:

What if our war machines were designed to look like this:

You'd have to be insane not to fire at a Terminator - but what kind of sick, heartless bastard would fire at a Teletubby skipping merrily across the battlefield?

If you saw a killer robot coming towards you which looked like R2-D2 (or any other popular culture "friendly" robot) - how easy would it be for you to overcome your friendly feelings towards it?