NY Times Interviews Replicant While Its Owners Prepare for Digital Resurrection

17 14 Loading
bina-rothblatt-bina48-new-york-times-interview

The New York Times interviewed Bina48, a replicant owned by proponents of a digital afterlife.

Modern robots don’t make the best conversationalists. That’s something that New York Times reporter Amy Harmon found out the hard way. She recently published her interview with Bina48, a robotic head created by Hanson Robotics based on the appearance and memories of a real human being – Bina Rothblatt. The $125,000 system was purchased by Martina Rothblatt, Bina’s spouse and a ground breaking lawyer/entrepreneur in satellite radio technology. As you can see in the following video of Harmon’s interview the pricey robot head looks cool, but like most chatterbots it produces a conversation full of confusion, distractions, and frustrations. Even with its limitations, Bina48 may be the herald of greater things to come. The Rothblatts, through their Terasem Movement Foundation, are pursuing artificial intelligence, longevity, and digital resurrection. Could we all live forever through replicants? Would anyone want to talk to us if we do?

Creating a digital version of yourself is a fairly common science fiction trope that may actually make its way into the real world. Robot manufacturers, like Hanson Robotics and Kokoro, are creating the hardware – animatronic shells with rubber skin that mimic human facial expressions. Hanson has had some success on the software side of things as well. His Phillip K. Dick replicant was able to talk and answer questions like the famous scifi author, and his Einstein robot, though not strictly aiming to reproduce the scientist’s personality, is a much-sought-after robot on the conference circuit. The Bina48 robot is a little less polished than either of those predecessors, but it demonstrates how an average person could be translated into a digital program that speaks through a robotic clone.

Would this digitally resurrected version of yourself be recognizable as you? Not if we created it today. The Bina48 robot is an interesting device. It can make eye contact, and even recognize faces it knows (to some degree). Using an Internet connection it can get some deeper information to answer questions, and it’s likely that it occasionally draws on Bina Rothblatt’s data for some of its personality and desires (does the real Bina like to garden?). Yet its conversation skills seem no better than those chatbots that aren’t based on real people. As Harmon writes in her NY Times article, prolonged interaction with Bina can lead to day dreams of strangling the robot.

So an average human is unlikely to be well translated into a computer medium. Not that the Rothblatt’s are exactly your most average couple. Martina is a highly paid executive with a history of entrepreneurship in satellite radio and other telecomm industries. Bina likewise has experience in telecomm. Martina was also born a man and underwent sexual reassignment surgery, which she talked about on Howard Stern’s satellite radio show. Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that the first people who pursue digital copies of themselves are likely to have more financial means and unique perspective on identities than the average technophile.

I should also mention that Martina Rothblatt is one of the executive producers for Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near film, whose New York debut we recently covered. That film discusses the creation of artificial life, as well as digital copies of ourselves. The rights of such ‘individuals’ is one of the key themes explored in the movie.

bina-rothblatt-bina48

There's little chance you'd mistake the real Bina Rothblatt for her replicant. But one day we may need to find ways of distinguishing the two.

If the Rothblatts have their way, there could be many more such creatures. Their Terasem Movement Foundation is aimed at promoting the preservation and creation of human consciousness as digital life. Terasem regularly meets, discusses, and funds projects that may one day be able to create a computer copy of you. One of their projects, CyBeRev, is a sort of free online database where you can store your memories and documents in the hopes of one day using such information to create a digital avatar. They are a little limited on describing what technology will eventually be used to ‘revive’ you, but they accept a wide range of data (photos, writing, records) so there’s a fairly good chance that something you upload would be helpful somehow. But even if you never use it, it is free of charge. We may not all have $125,000 to spend on robotic replicants, but the Rothblatts and Terasem seem determined to grant everyone the potential to recreate some semblance of themselves as artificial intelligence.

While Bina48 seems less than personable now, I expect the capabilities of robots like it to improve in the years ahead. Better animatronics and facial expression routines may pull these replicants out of the uncanny valley just as improved conversation algorithms will make interacting with them less frustrating. The bigger question is, of course, whether these human-based programs will ever actually be considered intelligent. If that does happen, will we consider them to be copies of their human counterparts, progeny, or a continuation of the biological organism in digital form. Just as we’ve used and updated the Turing test to qualify what counts as AI, we may need to come up with some means of determining if a digital version of yourself is really you (with all the rights that implies), or just an amazing simulacrum. Looking at Bina48 that test seems pretty easy for the moment. The robot may look like Bina Rothblatt, but it’s far from human.

[screen capture and video credit: New York Times]
[sources: NYT, CyBeRev.org, Terasem Movement]

Discussion — 14 Responses

  • Josh July 16, 2010 on 7:37 am

    I’m sick of hearing about “digital immortality”. If my memories get backed up and placed into a robot doppelganger of me in case I die, I consider that a fate worse than death, to have a replicant walking around in my shoes while the real me ceases to exist. That just sounds very “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” to me. Living forever through a replicant is not living forever in the slightest, it’s all well and good for the replicant but not so good for -ME- me. I still die, so I fail to see the point to digital resurrection since my actual life hasn’t been saved, only duplicated. That just isn’t good enough.

    • Robi5 Josh July 21, 2010 on 9:32 am

      Living forever is preferable to living forever through a replica, but people already live forever through replicas (photos, videos etc.) that might be superior to what’s currently available. Once it is in the uncanny valley loaded with memories, usages and characteristic movements, a replica may become a desired companion for a family member. But we are not in the valley yet.

  • Josh July 16, 2010 on 3:37 am

    I’m sick of hearing about “digital immortality”. If my memories get backed up and placed into a robot doppelganger of me in case I die, I consider that a fate worse than death, to have a replicant walking around in my shoes while the real me ceases to exist. That just sounds very “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” to me. Living forever through a replicant is not living forever in the slightest, it’s all well and good for the replicant but not so good for -ME- me. I still die, so I fail to see the point to digital resurrection since my actual life hasn’t been saved, only duplicated. That just isn’t good enough.

    • Robi5 Josh July 21, 2010 on 5:32 am

      Living forever is preferable to living forever through a replica, but people already live forever through replicas (photos, videos etc.) that might be superior to what’s currently available. Once it is in the uncanny valley loaded with memories, usages and characteristic movements, a replica may become a desired companion for a family member. But we are not in the valley yet.

  • Joey1058 July 16, 2010 on 10:48 am

    I’m not into the concept of physically replicating myself. But itsy bits of my personality have been creeping into the cloud for a number of years now. Every comment I make (such as this one), every web page I’ve created, every photo I’ve uploaded, and of course social media. So one day a good number of years from now, who’s to say that Joey1058 mk2 won’t be looking for this stuff to become more whole?

  • Joey1058 July 16, 2010 on 6:48 am

    I’m not into the concept of physically replicating myself. But itsy bits of my personality have been creeping into the cloud for a number of years now. Every comment I make (such as this one), every web page I’ve created, every photo I’ve uploaded, and of course social media. So one day a good number of years from now, who’s to say that Joey1058 mk2 won’t be looking for this stuff to become more whole?

  • Jeremy July 19, 2010 on 11:06 pm

    Absolutely love the “conspiring to take over the planet” line. I know its probably not true, but I’m going to choose to believe that wasn’t a predefined response.

  • Jeremy July 19, 2010 on 7:06 pm

    Absolutely love the “conspiring to take over the planet” line. I know its probably not true, but I’m going to choose to believe that wasn’t a predefined response.