Subscribe to TIB's RSS FeedSustaining a Post-JD Terminator/Human Alliance
Jan 26th, 2009 | By CJ | Category: TTSCCCameron: They’re going to kill you. They’re going to kill every one of you. They’ll hunt you down, until every Human is gone and you’re extinct.
Allison: Then…why are we having this conversation?
Cameron: Because some of us don’t want that. Some of us want peace. You were chosen, Allison. Not just by John Connor. By us.— Terminator – The Sarah Connor Chronicles,
“Allison From Palmdale” (0204)
The big “what if” of Cameron’s history is whether or not she was telling the truth to Allison. What if Cameron and a group of like-minded terminators didn’t want the extermination of humans, and were willing to stop the fighting? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Cameron was able to convince future-John of this. And let’s say that 
together the Humans and the non-Skynet Terminators managed to defeat Skynet and its minions. Then what?
We will have a destroyed world. Humanity has been severely depopulated, but given its vast numbers to start with, that probably wouldn’t have been a bad thing. Because of the nuclear, chemical, and biologic weapons that were employed during a couple of decades of war, much of the land once able to support the feeding of billions will likely be damaged or unusable.
The allied Terminators will be in a precarious situation. While humanity owes them for helping to defeat Skynet, they are still Terminators, after all. Strong, long-lived, and able to exist without additional resources (so far as we know) after their manufacture and activation—and sentient to boot—it would be hard for many not to view them as a threat.
John’s position in this will be precarious (assuming he survived the war). On one side he has his cybernetic allies who have had a hand in saving his life since before he was born. On the other, he will have to deal with a population that is likely overwhelmingly like Jesse Flores: convinced that a life with terminator allies (worse…”fixed” terminators) is little more than a fool’s dream more akin to sitting on a powder keg with a burning two-inch fuse.
Frayed Nerves and Wires
It’s almost certain that some sort of coup will be attempted to oust John from power. The thing is, at that point, John probably doesn’t want to be in power. Saving humanity tends to be a high-stress job that most are willing to pass-on. In this case, it’s very likely that the terminators will have to insist that John continue the fight. John is their shining beacon of legitimacy. If they are to survive as a species in their own right, they need a human ally in these difficult times just as surely as John needed them to defeat Skynet.
Rather predictably, this becomes a sort of feedback loop. With John surrounding himself with machines, it would likely reenforce the impression that he’s become their puppet (at best) or has decided to become his own version of Skynet (at worst).
Since, at this point, you have experienced human soldiers that are more than capable of taking out John’s metal force (albeit with major losses), it’s very likely that any major conflict will result in John’s death and the extermination of the alliance terminators.
A New Messiah
There is a way out. As has been typical throughout history, a mediator rises up at the cusp of misfortune and brings enough reason to the situation to allow for more measured solutions. In this post-JD world, the only sort of person that would be listened to by both sides is a human, a civilian, who has no post-JD relationship with John. This person might have known John pre-JD, but more importantly this person had a relationship with a terminator that was largely a positive one.
This idea isn’t entirely unreasonable. Cameron, for instance, gets sufficiently damaged on her missions that her reality of being a cybernetic organism could easily be accepted by someone with an open mind. Given that Cameron has a new-found desire to right up-turned turtles, she could earn her way into a young person’s heart without too much difficulty.
But Cameron isn’t our only terminator with a complex relationship structure. Catherine Weather is raising her human victim’s young daughter, Savannah. Though she sometimes errs (after all, she’s only metal), Savannah has come to accept Catherine as “mother”. A person like Savannah could very well be the sort of peace broker that John and his allies would need to survive.
Savannah would have no direct connection with John, Cameron, or any of the other terminators that Jesse and her ilk would have intelligence on. If Savannah had been very careful to never be considered a “gray” or a sympathizer, her tales of a nurturing terminator might be enough to make both sides pause for long enough to listen. It would also help if, in some way, Catherine had done something positive (which is fuel in and of itself for more speculation).
But even if the mediator isn’t Savannah, there will have been scores of people cognizant of pre-JD helpful terminator actions that someone could be found. In fact, it’s entirely likely that they would end up being the new leader. John would have to step down as damaged goods. He served his purpose. Now it would be time for a new age.
Surviving the Peace
What would this new age mean? Humans would likely do what humans do: breed like humans. They can sextuple their population in about a century. The difficult part will be growing food, but since there will still be non-sentient machines available, perhaps it will make things easier.
For the terminators, it will be different. They will, of course, want the ability to reproduce, so some manufacturing capability will have to be retained. Like Cameron before them, it’s likely that they will have to spend some time in learning what it is to be a cyborg. While some will undoubtedly want to interact with the humans (or perhaps most…that darned infiltrator directive and all), others will just walk around with their endoskeleton completely exposed.
There will be much to learn by both sides. It will take at least one full generation, more likely two, for ill-feelings to subside from the human population. The realities of a new generation are rarely those of their parents. Humans will have to learn to accept terminators as co-managers of the planet. Just because they are mechanical doesn’t mean that they can be treated as slaves. If some equilibrium can be achieved, then a social evolution can take place. It probably won’t be until the new generation of terminators is ready to take the place of their “parents” (about 120 years) until the society has matured to allow for this. Large change of this sort typically takes several human generations.
Or… a coup is enacted, John and his terminator buddies are killed, and a new world order is put in place. Not a lot of speculation has to happen, because it will just be the same ol’ same ol’. Humans have proven to be pretty consistent.
I’d like to think that we could make room for another sentient species, especially one of our own creation. It could usher in a new age of mankind. The question is whether we have the ability to accept our differences and resolve to make both species evolve into something neither could have done on their own, or if we’ll just fall back on the same tired prejudices that led to JD in the first place? Perhaps we’ll just have to look to the better robots of our nature.
Do you have something you'd like to say about this article?
Scroll down to the comments section and tell us what you think.
To my way of thinking – peace is not an option. Or better say peaceful coexistence. Between two different spices there always be constant competition in all possible areas. And if, which is likely, cyborgs manage to evolve more quickly than humans – the only option for humanity to maintain independence is force. Look at the humanity – we compete between ourselves from the very beginning – race over race, culture over culture, sex over sex. What equals this competition is pretty same level and speed of evolution. But with cyborgs it’s complete different story – they certainly can evolve much faster than humans. They are limited by technology, not by nature. And technology advances way too fast for humanity to catch up.
I think, that the best way is to separate. Let cyborgs be free, but preferably not on Earth. Sort of “BattleStar Gallactica” ending when rebel toasters travel away on their base ships.
At last, I think we will surpass them, because natural evolution is totally unpredictable and will eventually come up with something big. But we need our time. Alone.
once again, I think we’ve stumbled upon the subject of one if not several novels. Given a starting point of a decimated human race, and a smaller race of advanced robots and cyborgs, what happens?
You write, “Between two different species there always be constant competition in all possible areas.” I understand what you’re trying to say, so let me restate: between two different species of similar interests and overall ability, there will be a constant competition for commonly desired resources. For example, terminators would want limited water resources for manufacturing, we would want water for ingestion… conflict.
The danger, I think, is with imbuing terminators with human emotions and motivations. they are not human. Even if we program them, as you say they will evolve quickly. How they view the world will not be how we view the world. In fact, not being biologic, they likely will view the world in a way that has never been viewed before. As a result, we can rationally suppose just about any possible outcome.
It’s a remarkably fertile ground for discussion. In fact, it might even wind its way and one of the scripts that I’m writing. Because surely somebody would have to wonder what happens after the war.
Thanks. I’m going to be happily thinking about this for quite some time.
Whatever yet unknown to us “emotions and motivations” cyborgs will have, in the end it’s all derived from (and lead to) survival , wich in turn is most easily reached through domination over habital environment.
But a crucial variable has to be the amount of critical environment both side wish to have dominion of. Consider the savanna watering hole. All must use it, but it is still a dangerous place. Or, another way: wildebeest, zebra, springbok, all vastly outnumber lions, cheetahs, hyenas, etc. They share a common environment, yet none actually dominates the other (predation correlates, but does not equate, to dominion). Prey, when sufficiently motivated, often can overwhelm those with the perceived power. As was pointed out in Gandhi: “100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate.”
But what if the numbers aren’t so disparate? Symbiosis is certainly possible. If the abilities of one species mesh with the needs of another (and vice versa), then both can survive, as nature often demonstrates.
Still, you are correct in pointing out that many species will do what they can to exterminate another for coveted resources. Ironically, this can also lead to threatening the invading species’ own survival if the over-taken niche isn’t somehow balanced. Parasites often have to find that equilibrium between taking from a host and not causing the demise of the host species. Humans, too, have this problem with deforestation: we need land to sustain our numbers, but the available land is poor for agriculture, with the result that not only does the problem not get solved for long, but ends up exacerbating other problems (e.g. the carbon and nitrogen cycles).
There are a myriad variables that determine what is in the best interest of a species’ survival. While I wouldn’t doubt it likely that sentient machines who have learned from humans would conclude that dominion over humans is the only way, that isn’t necessarily the only possible paradigm. When you don’t have to depend on fortuitous adaptation and can instead deliberately evolve to fit an environment, the path for survival might change and seem less desperate.
The fly in the ointment is the human element. Would it be possible for humans at war with another sentient species to consent to live side-by-side with that species after that long war was over? Change “species” to “race” or “ethnicity” or “religion” or “gender” or any other labels humans use and you can see the answer is an unqualified maybe. Sometimes it can work. Sometimes it doesn’t. The key is whether both sides can honestly agree that the war is over.
While it is obvious how needs of humans may fit with abilities of robots, the most challenging question is what robots can benefit from us. To my degree, not to many. Imagination, creativity, intuition and many other mind-relative concepts that we suppose are not applicable to AI may as well be in no use for them or simply be replaceable by calculation of all possible variants. Even if robots will find any good use for humans, it’s unseen if this covers humanity as a whole.
I like to look to “Self Made Man” as a reason why machines would want humans around, which is as you stated, our ability to see patterns and our creative leaps of imagination. It’s a heck of an advantage.
You look as despotic regimes and you frequently see the first edict: kill the intellectuals. This of course eventually dooms the tyrants because by removing a perceived possible threat they have instead removed their most valuable resource. The ones who understand that creative thinkers are treasures and not poison are the ones who tend to thrive. Perhaps humanity’s creative spark is a big enough treasure in and of itself to be worth the other garbage that comes with it.
No, no, I don’t even think of “kill the intellectuals”. Gosh. I just wonder if machines could see that “heck of an advantage”? How can we be so sure of our exclusiveness in that area? After all, ability to see patterns is just a sophisticated pattern-matching algorithm hidden in our brain. Do you 100% sure that creativeness can’t be programmed? How can we discuss that robots are sentient and than reject some sentient concepts regarding them?
I’m truly sorry, for looking “as despotic regimes”. I mean no offense. Just enjoying discussion. And not least to say, I’m very glad that I found your blog because my desperation about fate of TSCC just increasing over time and what you are writhing is like a relive. Thank you.
I think even in sentient species that creativity is often specific to an area and is also present in degrees. Just looking within the human species we see great variance.
When we consider how a massively parallel structure, such as an AAI, would accomplish its work, it’s entirely possible that such a sentient species, or at least some individuals, would find themselves outside of a rigid rule-following paradigm (i.e. they can “cross against the light”). The key is that in order to be adaptable in the chaotic real world, this massively parallel machine has to be able to modify itself based on experience and outcomes. As a result, reactions to events become less predictably (or rigidly) programmatic. Not that such a structure would be programmed…just instantiated at a known base state.
One debate that has been on-going in the AI community for a while is whether sufficiently complex mass parallelism will allow an intelligence to spring forth spontaneously or if it has to be coaxed (i.e. the “hand of God” hypothesis)? If it’s spontaneous, then it’s conceivable that a sufficiently large and complex structure will result in not only sentience but increasing creativity. On the other hand, what if more is needed than the structure and the ability to learn/adapt? If that’s the case, and the sentient artificial being comprehends that lack in themselves, they would recognize the need for a means to fill that deficit–if only for the chance that the spark of creativity would eventually emerge within themselves.
It’s very possible that this is at the core of the Terminator universe. Skynet recognizing its shortcoming and opts to eliminate all beings, natural or artificial, that have the spark of creativity. I then look at the opposite side: Catherine Weaver. From what we’ve seen in season 2, it appears that Weaver is at the threshold of being creative but just can’t quite cross. She understands the need and utilizes the human resources around her (Dr. Sherman, Mr. Murch, Savannah, Ellison) to try to instill it in John Henry/the Turk. Look at her excitement when John Henry was able to do something that she couldn’t: make jokes, play hide-and-seek, or sing. She’s clearly sentient, but wants a better life for her “child”.
And yet, Weaver does not seem to be a malevolent robot. True, she’s a bit of a sociopath, but then again she has the robot mentality of “if I break it I can make a new one”. She will kill a human or a robot with no remorse…but also no malice.
And then we get Cameron. Cameron spontaneously has learned different lessons. Perhaps it was inherent in her subspecies/model. Perhaps it’s the result of that hunk of metal that “confused” her chip in “Samson and Delilah”. However it came about, she seemed to have managed to find the balance. While still a terminator, she isn’t quite the sociopath that Weaver is.
But is she creative? She danced for no good reason that we can see–before her chip was damaged. So, perhaps. Or perhaps she and John Henry are the two halves of the equation. She has learned (mostly) the morality. He has learned (mostly) the creativity. In neither case has their situation been “programmed” per se. The coded foundation is there, yes, but it took more. Not just learning, but guidance.
Honestly, I’d love to sit down with Cameron, Weaver, and John Henry to try to start understanding them. How do they see the world when the doors are closed and they are by themselves? What do they think about humans? What do they think about robots? What do they think about humans and robots? What a fascinating conversation that would be.
Thanks for the answer. Hope I don’t distract you from writing next episode, because I can’t wait for it to emerge!
As for the case, I think that the question is: Can AI improve by itself? I mean can it become self-programmer, modifying not only information or rules but core algorithms? Because if it can, than I guess nothing is impossible. But again, as I see it, programming is creativity by itself, so we end up with chicken-egg loop.
Oh yeah, code can modify itself. This is something that was done a lot 25+ years ago when assembly language was king. Fun times. In modern times it can take on the flavor or genetic programming (or programs that “breed” themselves toward what it perceives as a solution).
Still, it’s assumed that there is a bit of a quantum leap between being able to adapt and learn “organically” and being able to understand oneself and how one functions enough to consciously change one’s fundamental programming. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this happens sooner than you’d think. After all, unlike humans, the machines would come with documentation which should help to flatten out the learning curve.
Totally agree. So, this must be human, who sparkle it, helping to make first step. And again I wonder: what if we are not the evolution top, as we all used to think, but just a good tool to create one?
I think that’s one of the biggest leaps many people have to make: to understand that we are not the top rung of the evolutionary ladder, but just a leaf on a branch of the tree of life. After all, who is mightier: the one with the big brain that has figured out how to synthesize antibiotics, or the single bacterium that can kill that brain in days?
Heh…I can’t help but think to Captain Hammer’s song in Dr. Horrible’s Singalong Blog: “Everyone’s a hero in their own way…you and you and mostly me and you.”
As for what starts the cascade to an AAI? Who knows that the crucial bit is? We are but a link in the chain.
Quite a wordly exchange of opinions we got here, mostly thanks to you
It was real pleasure.
What else I want to mention, is that to my memory there merely was any serious art creations (in literature, movies or other) that would examine peaceful co-existence of robots and humans. Azimov, passing through many conflicts, ends up with a world without robots in his universe (as to the end of “Foundation”). As of modern movies – “The Matrix”, “Terminator”, “Battlestar Gallactica” they all show us that AI is nothing, but a disaster. Despite “Battlestar Galactica’s” happy ending the red line says “It all happened before and will happen again”, so saying that conflict is inevitable. The only totally non-aggressive robo-creature that comes to my mind is Tralfamadorian from Vonnegut’s books, but he was just passing by…
Examples of non-malevolent or good robots. Well…certainly we can look to the robots in Asimov’s I, Robot anthology. The three rules of robotics pretty much kept them in line.
Let’s see… C3P0 and R2D2 come to mind as pretty beneficent, as do most of the other non-military robots in the saga. The three drones in Silent Running. Robot from Lost in Space. Data from Star Trek – The Next Generation. From Aliens we get Bishop. From The Jetsons we have Rosie.
Even anime started out with good robots. Astro Boy, Gigantor, Tobor, the 8th Man were at the dawn of anime, and they feature robots as heroes to mankind. We can even go much further back: to ancient Greece. The God Hephaestus built robots to help him around as the god was lamed years earlier by his mother. (He made other robots as well).
Or, if humanoid isn’t a requirement, we can probably even include KITT from Knightrider, or possibly “Joshua” from WarGames (a precocious child who did right once it was allowed to learn). I think a good case can be made that Star Trek’s federation is so infused with artificially intelligent ships and devices that little attention is paid to them (though the AI is purposely kept at a low, subservient level).
And there are more. Generally speaking, these “good” examples aren’t thought of being as “sexy” as robots that are our competitors. It’s so easy to have robots want to destroy us. Or aliens want to destroy us. Or suddenly sentient apes want to destroy us. You sense a theme? You guessed it. We are trying to give ourselves valor…worth…even when we are the destroyers.
Reading all this lively conversation makes me wish I knew more about computers than I currently do. The thing about Terminator that makes it interesting is the fact it can happen. The whole idea of AI is brilliant. I mean, when we think about it, the governments of the world are already using AI in a military sense, who’s to say what path that could take us down? Over in Australia I saw a news report about a group of scientists who wanted to place limitations on creation of AI because they feared it would get too smart, etc etc. It’s really thought provoking topic, and your elaborations of peace and thought processes that AI could have just make it all the more interesting.