Rossum's Universal Robots and the Purpose of AI

On Rossum's Universal Robots and creating AI that is ethically useful instead of unethically derivative. 

I've just finished reading Rossum's Universal Robots by Karel Čapek, or R.U.R. for short, and I'm noticing some ideas there that resonate with what we're facing today with the whole AI problem.

Not so much the idea of a sentient robot rebellion - though that of course is always a fascinating discussion, especially given what it says about human nature - but rather the purpose of the making of these robots. This generally pertains to the first act of the play, and the first conversations that the characters have.

If you haven't read R.U.R., it's a scifi play published in 1920 and focuses on a factory that builds robots that look exactly like humans. They sell them as workers and servants. Unfortunately, European governments end up using them as soldiers, which leads to catastrophic wars and plays a large role in the rebellion of the robots.

You can find it on Project Gutenberg. But back to the idea of the purpose of the robots. 

One of the main characters in the play, Fabry, explains to Helena that that the robots are specifically made for work, and have no other purpose. While they look human, they aren't, and it's silly to consider giving them emotions or rights. Domin, the general manager of the factory, explains his vision for humanity: He wants humans to stop having to toil and labour, so that poverty and social inequality is completely eradicated, and they can focus on the creative pursuits and self-improvement.

DOMIN. (Seriously. Rises) Yes, Alquist, they will. Yes, Miss Glory, they will. But in ten years Rossum's Universal Robots will produce so much corn, so much cloth, so much everything that things will be practically without price. There will be no poverty. All work will be done by living machines. Everybody will be free from worry and liberated from the degradation of labor. Everybody will live onto to perfect himself.

HELENA. Will he?

DOMIN. Of course. It's bound to happen. Then the servitude of man to man and the enslavement of man to matter will cease. Nobody will get bread at the cost of life and hatred. The Robots will wash the feet of the beggar and prepare a bed for him in his house. 

ALQUIST. Domin, Domin, what you say sounds too much like Paradise. There was something good in service and something great in humility. There was some kind of virtue in toil and weariness. 

As you can see above, Alquist, who is a builder - someone who works with his hands - disagrees with this vision. There is a certain discussion to be had about aiming for a world in which there is no labor at all - something about the loss of important skills, the undervaluing of work, and so on - but it's not what I want to focus on in this post. 

The idea here is that the robots will do all of the hard work, so that humans can focus on living their best lives. And it got me thinking about this post that I saw on Twitter a while back:

Humans doing the hard jobs on minimum wage while the robots write poetry and paint is not the future I wanted

— Karl Sharro (@KarlreMarks) May 15, 2023

I think the post speaks for itself. There are so many issues in the world today, with so many struggling, that it seems rather off-tune to focus on creating tools that help make the struggle even harder for a whole chunk of the global population: artists, writers, voice actors, and even musicians. How can we compete when the markets are not being flooded with AI-generated content?

And, if we take Domin's remark about how the robots would produce so much that everything would cost nearly nothing - can't the same concept be applied to creative products today? Won't the overwhelming influx of AI-generated content - extremely low-cost to create and presented at extremely low prices - simply devalue the art that so many of us struggle for hours to create?

Of course, we need to pause here and say that this depends on a very specific factor, and that's how well AI gets at generating these types of content. We've all seen those AI-generated paintings with 7-fingered hands and awkwardly arranged limbs. In comparison to that, surely human paintings would always come out on top. Until, of course, AI learns to perfect that flaw, and is able to overcome it.

HELENA. What have they all gone for?

DOMIN. To cook, Miss Glory. (On her L.)

HELENA. To cook what?

DOMIN. Lunch. (They laugh; takes her hand) The Robots do our cooking for us and as they've no taste it's not altogether-- (She laughs.) Hallemeier is awfully good at grills and Gall can make any kind of sauce, and Busman knows all about omelets. 

The engine of human creativity cannot be replicated in AI. Just like the Robots, AI has no taste. It will never make anything new - only soulless derivatives of human-made art that was fed to it. This is true of all types of AI-generated content. That probably means that human creativity will never be rendered obsolete, but AI can learn very quickly.

Anyway, all of this got me thinking: Why are we focusing on getting AI to generate artistic content? Why can't we focus more on getting AI to do things that will help make our lives easier, that will help eradicate poverty and inequality and so on? Why does the program, which, like Rossum's Robots, has no soul or emotion get to create works which are normally imbued with human soul and emotion?

Why can it not be relegated to the more technical pursuits instead? To be put to work to the betterment of mankind and humanity in general, rather then their peril? 

I'm no AI expert, but I figure if you can teach an AI to learn to blend together different images, or emulate an author's style, or even someone's face and voice, then you can probably program an AI that can do something actually ethically useful.