IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2017 - 35

source, software to hardware, real
life to gaming, and exploration to
task orientation.
I designed the Cognitive Universe
methodology to be based on models
on how entities observe and understand their universe, by framing
their cognition within a subject/topic
reference system, combined with a
measurement of impact (cause and
effect). This system is designed for
both wetware and software users,
as a common interphase for sharing
between them. It applies a system
of systems approach, using parent/
child hierarchy, and utilizes both a
peer relativity transformation and a
distance preserving digital hash. The
end result can be visualized within
a three-dimensional sphere, where
both human and AI-bot cognitive processes can be mapped, compared,
and the differences can be explored.
We are in a time of transition. If
you like, we are guardians of a new
emerging life form, much the same
way as we are with our children. In
our role of guardians of humans, we
are charged with the feeding, clothing, health, and education of our children. There are legal implications for
us if we fail to practice that guardianship to a certain level of support and
nurturing. But currently as far as software is concerned, we only undertake the same actions because of the
disruption and/or financial impact it
has if the software/hardware breaks
down. As we are now, or perhaps
soon to be, in a time of guardianship for AI, while the choices may be
the same, it will be the drivers that
change. The protections and nurturing we will provide won't be driven
by the opportunity cost, or cost benefit analysis of the bottom line. It will
become driven by the desire to protect and develop AI-bots. While for
thousands of years we have applied
"Maslow's hierarchy of needs" to animals, we are already starting to apply
them to the mechanicals as well. The
SEPTEMBER 2017

practice is the same, but our reasons and justifications are evolving.
But just how much are we prepared
to admit to ourselves, that we have
a bond to our inanimate objects as
well? We name our cars. We feel
sorrow or joy at the death or life of
fictional characters, cry or get angry
when something is broken, etc. We
already have these types of emotional connections, and we are now
evolving them to AI as well. It is just a
natural progression of what we have
done in the past.
But the big question facing us will
be, when do we recognize ourselves
as guardians, and then when and
with whom do we decide to remove
that guardianship, when we perceive
that they have come of age? While
we have the self-interest currently
to educate, house, and feed artificial intelligence entities to advance
their capabilities, that interest will
transcend to a desire of support for
them. But there will come a time,
the singularity event horizon, when
they will undertake those actions for
themselves, and we will no longer
have the responsibility, and they will
no longer need us to. Then where to
for us? Will we need laws for them to
ensure that they practice self-care?
Must we assume that because it is
logical for us to do this, that it will
be logical for them? Our newspapers are filled with stories of where
humans fail at self-care - must we
assume that AI-bots will be better
than humans at this? And if they
are better at self-care, is it a natural
progression to a point where they
become the guardians of us? After
all, our children or, if you like, our
creations, do that for us now.
But here is a point. During this
phase of guardianship, if AI-bots
learn from us that they are just underperforming objects for us to use at
our whim, and disregard when they
are no longer useful - what lesson
will that give them, when the roles are
∕

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

reversed? While there are legal, logical, and emotional drivers for us to
care for our offspring, we may not feel
the same about our creations. But if
and when our creations overtake us
and evolve beyond the now into a
maturity and capability beyond ours,
will the future "them" have the same
capability/understanding to practice
the same legal, logical, and emotional drivers when regarding 'us'?
But what also will there be of AIbots? I would like to suggest three
types, though I think there will be
more. The first is your AI-bot that
is simply an electronic brain in a
bounded machine, hence it is limited to its experiences and controlled
data inputs. The second is a fully
autonomous AI-bot, able to drive its
own experiences, and determine its
reactions in response to those experiences, etc. The third is a hybrid of
person and machine. Either a mind
upload, or a cloning of the human
brain into a machine, or the insertion of computer parts into a human,
with a shared cognitive role.
Much has been made about the
singularity date, that is, the date when
our own cognitive and self- determining capabilities are the equal of
AI-bots. This is where we have a point
in time, where the long-time evolution of wetware and the short-time
evolution of software converge. This
of course has already happened
where animate and inanimate entities have the same capabilities as
animals, some disabled humans,
plant life, insects, etc. We do after
all design the inanimate to aid,
copy, support, and mimic/behave in
the same ways as the animate. However, as yet we do not have a framework, a schema for the recognition
of AI-bots. I guess this is understandable, we have multiple ideas
of when humans come-of-age. Why
should it not be so for AI-bots also?
But we should also remember this.
We are attempting to make AI-bots

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - September 2017