Does Turned against their masters get used too much in fiction?

We all know the story:

Mankind creates machines that, either by design or by circumstance gain intelligence and the inevitable happens: they turn on humanity either because they think we're all assholes or....well that's usually it.

....Sometimes, I feel like this is the only story that gets told with AI. Now considering how humanity is, I can fully grasp why people would be convinced this is the way things would go. Hell, I'm kinda convinced it'll happen myself in real life with how crazy machines have gotten in the past twenty years, but I have to ask if this is the only story that can be told with Sentient machines.

Is there any other direction things can go? Any other story that can be told regarding what they'd do? Or are we just either cynical or creatively bereft in that regard? Cause it feels like we're repeating the same old Robot War stories.

Edited by HandsomeRob on Jan 1st 2020 at 4:57:48 AM

Well, there's this little franchise called Star Trek which likes to explore the Androids Are People, Too angle, and this other little franchise called Star Wars in which robots are friendly and helpful, or occasionally murderous assassins, but don't go in for uprisings much. I think the trope has been averted, subverted, and played with plenty.

I forgot about Star Trek, although Data is the only notable Android. There have been others, but they never lasted very long or were just one shots. Voyager had those two races of Androids built by their masters to war with each other for some reason....who then destroyed their masters when the two sides tried to make peace so they could keep fighting.

As for Star Wars...Droids are kinda second class citizens there, but it's true there's been no droid rebellion.

Actually, in Star Wars Expanded Universe, so-called Legends now, was at least three of droid rebellions: Great Droid Revolution , Droid Revolution, Droid rebellion

Issac asmiov play this trope(because OF COURSE he did), in that the central computer gain sentience and instead of outright rebeling, just move stuff to make human complacent, thinking that in a century or so people will just let it run stuff.

So think of this: they are more form of rebelion that we know, so your robot can just behive in a way for is own personal gain and their master are non the wiser.

There's the Polity books by Neal Asher.

In that series the Earth was also taken over by advanced A.I.s... with the twist being that they were completely benevolent about it. A lot of prose is given over to detailing just how much better humanity is under Polity rule, and how humans are inherantly bad at self-governance.

It's demonstrated that any group of humans is allowed to cede from Polity rule whenever they want. These people then to set up their own societies on other planets. The problem is, invariably, these same civilizations eventually come crawling back after they inevitably turn corrupt or fall apart.

One of my favourite chapters involves a character comparing the Polity A.I.s to other types of machinery invented by humans. She says that we built cars that can transport us far better than our legs ever could. We invented planes to help us fly when we naturally could not. So, what's the problem with inventing machines that think and LEAD better than we can?

Edited by GNinja on Jan 3rd 2020 at 5:29:39 PM

Huh. That's an interesting point. And it does show that Kill All Humans is not the inevitable result of machines going sentient.

Do we have anything were rather than destroying us or ruling us (even benevolently), machines and humans live in peace with each other as equals?

Cyber hybradization?

a inverse of cybernetic eat your soul so to speak.

I mean, all this kinda sort end in a sort of transhumanist bent so

There is a movie (as I can recall) that deal with just that.

A android which wants to become "human" and sets out on a journey to do so.

Flesh and blood included.

...

That said, I believe the idea of "man's creation rebelling against its creator" as the "inevitable conclusion" is something that has been in the minds of people for millennia, as evident with the bible and how "God's creation ended up betraying their creator by eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil", prompting the god to throw them out. (And this is actually a bit of a benign form of that plot, since God, in contrast to humanity, never destroys its "rebelling creation" but let it instead live, banished, and never suffer for it. In sharp contrast to how humans either end up "destroying" their creations or "ends up destroyed" by them in the end.)

Ever tried a robot rebellion plot that doesn't end up with the robot's destruction, but its banishment and opportunity to find its own solution in life without harming their creator or being harmed by its creator?

It became a popular fiction meme with Frankenstein, I think. The "I, Robot" series by Asimov is the poster child for androids and humans living side by side in harmony, although there is friction to provide narrative tension, of course. "The Culture" series by Ian Banks is similar, although the robots living as partners with the humans are not humanoid androids (they look like levitating suitcases), and there are also a bunch of superior AI's who run everything.

In this case is simple is that nobody want the feeling the robot outsmart humans, in unconfortable to some level.

oh yeah I robot with robin williams a clasic.

And cristianity kinda sorta play stright because jesus pretty much convince god that we are worth it and there is a way.

I think it feels like it gets used too much, because it's an excellent broad strokes reason. I think a lot of writers think 'franchise' with their work because we fall in love with our characters, our settings, the life we breathe into fiction.

Kind of like a placeholder for future stories.

So, I've been binging the HBO version of Westworld for the past week or two, because it pertains to my question.

But it also brings up another factor of Turned Against Their Masters: it's usually because of the actions of humans that machines and AI flip on them.

Then again, that's not so odd considering how we often hoist ourselves by our own petard in real life (see Global Warming for such an example).

I do wonder if it's just our naturally cynical natures that prevents some authors from considering other endings to such a scenario. And it's hard to fight against that.