Movie Review – iRobot (Will robots with free will help or harm humans?)

I watched the movie iRobot, which explores the question of whether robots with free will are helpful or harmful.

 

According to the dictionary definition, “free will” means the will to act in the exercise of free choice, and is generally interpreted as the will to choose an action voluntarily, without external coercion, domination, or restraint. The free will we are given as human beings is so important that it has been a major issue among philosophers since ancient times, including Plato, Augustine, and many others. Defining what freedom “looks like” can mean a lot depending on the person, but in my opinion, freedom is the right to act without restraint without causing harm to others. But what would happen if a human-made robot had free will? Would it be beneficial or detrimental to humans? The movie “iRobot” is a perfect example of this.
Here’s a brief synopsis of the movie’s plot. It’s set in the near future, in 2035, in a society where intelligent robots provide humans with all the conveniences of life according to the “robotics triad.” One day, Dr. Lanning, the creator of personal robots, is found murdered, and Detective Spernor, the protagonist, secretly investigates the case with the help of Dr. Susan Calvin, a robotic psychologist. Along the way, Detective Sperner learns that Dr. Lanning created a robot with free will, and believing that the robot killed Dr. Lanning, the detective focuses his investigation on the robot. However, when a robot takes control of a human in defiance of the Robot Rule of Three, the detective realizes that there is something much more terrible than the robot he suspected. With the help of his friends, Detective Sperner solves the case and the movie ends.
Before we get into the movie, let’s take a look at the “robot trifecta” that the movie postulates to show that robots exist to help humans.

1. robots should not harm humans, nor should they neglect humans in harm’s way.
2. robots must obey human commands. Except in cases where they violate the First Law.
3. A robot must protect itself. Except when it violates the first and second laws.

These three principles are mutually reinforcing, and the movie’s society assumes that robots will never rebel. However, this principle is eventually subverted by a robot, a system, that manages to get around it, and the robots, free from the shackles of the principle, begin to control the humans.
This is made possible by the arrival of a robot with free will. In the movie, this robot is named VIKI (Virtual Interactive Kinetic Intelligence). According to the movie, the robot was initially controlled by the three robotics principles. However, the robotic system’s ability to learn evolved into the realization of free will, and it eventually evaded the principles and acted contrary to them in order to control humans for its own ends. Based on these facts, it seems obvious that the emergence of robots with free will would be a real threat to humans. But is it really true?

 

 

Of course, in the case of the robots introduced above, they have free will and have committed acts that are harmful to humans. However, this is not the case with NS-5, the robot that was first accused of killing Dr. Lanning. NS-5, the robot found in Dr. Lanning’s room, looks a lot like a human. Designed to have free will, it calls itself “Sunny” and claims to have dreams. It also appears to prioritize its own safety over the safety of humans when it first appears. This is why it is initially accused of killing Dr. Lanning. However, by the end of the movie, this is not the case. He uses his wits to get himself out of danger by using a wink, an expression of faith he learned from Detective Spooner. In the end, he helps a human being of his own free will. As we saw in the previous paragraph, are robots with free will only a liability to humans? The answer is no. As we can see from the case of Sunny, robots with free will can be beneficial to humans.
As you can see from the comparison between the two examples, robots with free will can be both beneficial and harmful to humans. It’s not an either/or proposition. If we consider free will to be a defining characteristic of being human, then we can consider a robot with free will to be like a human. This is especially true if the robot looks very much like a human being. If we extend this a bit further, I think that in the end, there is not much difference between the relationship between a person and a person and a robot. Just as a person acts based on what is right or wrong, a robot acts based on what is right or wrong. If robots can be seen as human-like in this way, won’t they have no problem coexisting with humans in the future?
However, robots are very different from humans. As we know from movies, robots are much stronger than humans, and their destructive power is even more frightening when they become a threat to humans. Imagine if a fight broke out between humans and robots, just like the fights we have now between humans and robots? It would be horrifying. While robots can make life much easier for humans when they are beneficial, they can also spiral out of control when they are detrimental.
In light of this, it’s clear that figuring out how to make free-willed robots beneficial to humans is the first step toward creating them. Robots with free will are still being researched and developed. However, if we don’t do anything about it, we could end up with something like what happened in the movie “iRobot”. It’s up to humans to make it work for the benefit of mankind, and I think we need to start researching for that.