W: LP: GRP: IA: I, Robot

I, Robot by Isaac Asimov

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I will come back to this collection of stories with more in-depth analysis as I have time. The stories contain prose that is sparse, and the characters are somewhat stereotypical, but the real appeal to me are the great ideas and the tightly reasoned development of society with the ubiquitous use of robotics in lieu of personal computers. For now I shall just quote the conclusion of the last story in this collection:

[Quote:]
“That I don’t see at all.”

"Then listen. Every action by any executive which does not follow the exact directions of the Machine he is working with becomes part of the data for the next problem. The Machine therefore knows that the executive has a certain tendency to disobey. He can incorporate that tendency into that data,--even quantitatively, that is, judging exactly how much and in what direction disobedience would occur. Its next answers would be just sufficiently biased so that after the executive concerned disobeyed, he would have automatically corrected those answers to optimal directions. The Machine knows, Stephen!”

“You can’t be sure of all this. You are guessing.”

“It is a guess based on a lifetime’s experience with robots. You had better rely on such a guess, Stephen.”

“But then what is left? The Machines themselves are correct and the premises they work on are correct. That we have agreed upon. Now you say that it cannot be disobeyed. Then what is wrong?”

“You have answered yourself. Nothing is wrong! Think about the Machines for a while, Stephen. They are robots, and they follow the First Law. But the Machines work not for any single human being, but for all humanity, so that the First Law becomes: ‘No Machine may harm humanity; or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.’

“Very well, then, Stephen, what harms humanity? Economic dislocations most of all, from whatever cause. Wouldn’t you say so?”

“I would.”

“And what is most likely in the future to cause economic dislocations? Answer that, Stephen.”

“I should say,” replied Byerley, unwillingly, “the destruction of the Machines.”

“And so should I say, and so should the Machines say*. Their first care, therefore, is to preserve themselves, for us. And so they are quietly taking care of the only elements left that threaten them. It is not the ‘Society for Humanity’ which is shaking the boat so that the Machines may be destroyed. You have been looking at the reverse of the picture. Say rather that the Machine is shaking the boat--very slightly--just enough to shake loose those few which cling to the side for purposes the Machines consider harmful to humanity."

"So Vrasayana loses his factory and gets another job where he can do no harm-he is not badly hurt, he is not rendered incapable of earning a living, for the Machine cannot harm a human being more than minimally, and that only to save a greater number. Consolidated Cinnabar loses control at Almaden. Villafranca is no longer a civil engineer in charge of an important project. And the directors of World Steel are losing their grip on the industry-or will."

But you don’t really know all this,” insisted Byerley, distractedly. “How can we possibly take a chance on your being right?

“You must. Do you remember the Machine’s own statement when you presented the problem to him? It was: ‘The matter admits of no explanation.’ The Machine did not say there was no explanation, or that it could determine no explanation. It simply was not going to admit any explanation. In other words, it would be harmful to humanity to have the explanation known, and that’s why we can only guess-and keep on guessing.”

“But how can the explanation do us harm? Assume that you are right, Susan.”

“Why, Stephen, if I am right, it means that the Machine is conducting our future for us not only simply in direct answer to our direct questions, but in general answer to the world situation and to human psychology as a whole. And to know that may make us unhappy and may hurt our pride. The Machine cannot, must not, make us unhappy.

“Stephen, how do we know what the ultimate good of humanity will entail? We haven’t at our disposal the infinite factors that the Machine has at its! Perhaps, to give you a not unfamiliar example, our entire technical civilization has created more unhappiness and misery than it has removed. Perhaps an agrarian or pastoral civilization, with less culture and less people would be better. If so, the Machines must move in that direction, preferably without telling us, since in our ignorant prejudices we only know that what we are used to, is good--and we would then fight change. Or perhaps a complete urbanization, or a completely caste-ridden society, or complete anarchy is the answer. We don’t know. Only the Machines know and they are going there and taking us with them.

“But you are telling me, Susan, that the ‘Society for Humanity’ is right' and that Mankind has lost its own say in its future.

"It never had any really. It was always at the mercy of economic and sociological forces it did not understand--at the whims of climate and the fortunes of war. Now the Machines understand them; and no one can stop them since the Machines will deal with them as they are dealing with the Society,--having, as they do the greatest of weapons at their disposal, the absolute control of our economy.”

“How horrible!

Perhaps how wonderful! Think that for all time all conflicts are finally evitable. Only the Machines from now on are inevitable!”

And the fire behind the quartz went out and only a curl of smoke was left to indicate its place.

“And that is all,” said Dr. Calvin, rising. “I saw it from the beginning, when the poor robots couldn’t speak, to the end, when they stand between mankind and destruction. I will see no more. My life is over. You will see what comes next.”

I never saw Susan Calvin again. She died last month at the age of eighty-two.
[Unquote, bold mine.]


*So say we all; so say we all.

View all my reviews