Sigmund Freud said that we have an uncanny reaction to inanimate. This is probably because we know that – pretensions and layers of philosophizing aside – we are nothing but recursive, self aware, introspective, conscious machines. Special machines, no doubt, but machines all same.

Consider James bond movies. They constitute a decades-spanning gallery of human paranoia. Villains change: communists, neo-Nazis, media moguls. But one kind of villain is a fixture in this psychodrama, in this parade of human phobias: machine. James Bond always finds himself confronted with hideous, vicious, malicious machines and automata.

It was precisely to counter this wave of unease, even terror, irrational but all-pervasive, that Isaac Asimov, late Sci-fi writer (and scientist) invented Three Laws of Robotics:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with First or Second Laws. Many have noticed lack of consistency and, therefore, inapplicability of these laws when considered together.

First, they are not derived from any coherent worldview or background. To be properly implemented and to avoid their interpretation in a potentially dangerous manner, robots in which they are embedded must be equipped with reasonably comprehensive models of physical universe and of human society.

Without such contexts, these laws soon lead to intractable paradoxes (experienced as a nervous breakdown by one of Asimov's robots). Conflicts are ruinous in automata based on recursive functions (Turing machines), as all robots are. Godel pointed at one such self destructive paradox in "Principia Mathematica", ostensibly a comprehensive and self consistent logical system. It was enough to discredit whole magnificent edifice constructed by Russel and Whitehead over a decade.

Some argue against this and say that robots need not be automata in classical, Church-Turing, sense. That they could act according to heuristic, probabilistic rules of decision making. There are many other types of functions (non-recursive) that can be incorporated in a robot, they remind us.

True, but then, how can one guarantee that robot's behavior is fully predictable ? How can one be certain that robots will fully and always implement three laws? Only recursive systems are predictable in principle, though, at times, their complexity makes it impossible.

This article deals with some commonsense, basic problems raised by Laws. The next article in this series analyses Laws from a few vantage points: philosophy, artificial intelligence and some systems theories.

An immediate question springs to mind: HOW will a robot identify a human being? Surely, in a future of perfect androids, constructed of organic materials, no superficial, outer scanning will suffice. Structure and composition will not be sufficient differentiating factors.

There are two ways to settle this very practical issue: one is to endow robot with ability to conduct a Converse Turing Test (to separate humans from other life forms) - other is to somehow "barcode" all robots by implanting some remotely readable signaling device inside them (such as a RFID - Radio Frequency ID chip). Both present additional difficulties.

The second solution will prevent robot from positively identifying humans. He will be able identify with any certainty robots and only robots (or humans with such implants). This is ignoring, for discussion's sake, defects in manufacturing or loss of implanted identification tags. And what if a robot were to get rid of its tag? Will this also be classified as a "defect in manufacturing"?

In any case, robots will be forced to make a binary choice. They will be compelled to classify one type of physical entities as robots – and all others as "non-robots". Will non-robots include monkeys and parrots? Yes, unless manufacturers equip robots with digital or optical or molecular representations of human figure (masculine and feminine) in varying positions (standing, sitting, lying down). Or unless all humans are somehow tagged from birth.

These are cumbersome and repulsive solutions and not very effective ones. No dictionary of human forms and positions is likely to be complete. There will always be odd physical posture which robot would find impossible to match to its library. A human disk thrower or swimmer may easily be classified as "non-human" by a robot - and so might amputated invalids.

What about administering a converse Turing Test?

This is even more seriously flawed. It is possible to design a test, which robots will apply to distinguish artificial life forms from humans. But it will have to be non-intrusive and not involve overt and prolonged communication. The alternative is a protracted teletype session, with human concealed behind a curtain, after which robot will issue its verdict: respondent is a human or a robot. This is unthinkable.

The world is debating Solow Paradox. Named after Nobel laureate in economics, it was stated by him thus: "You can see computer age everywhere these days, except in productivity statistics". The venerable economic magazine, "The Economist" in its issue dated July 24th, quotes no less venerable Professor Robert Gordon ("one of America's leading authorities on productivity") - p.20: "...the productivity performance of manufacturing sector of United States economy since 1995 has been abysmal rather than admirable. Not only has productivity growth in non-durable manufacturing decelerated in 1995-9 compared to 1972-95, but productivity growth in durable manufacturing stripped of computers has decelerated even more."

What should be held true - hype or dismal statistics? The answer to this question is of crucial importance to economies in transition. If investment in IT (information technology) actually RETARDS growth - then it should be avoided, at least until a functioning marketplace is there to counter its growth suppressing effects.

The notion that IT retards growth is counter-intuitive. It would seem that, at least, computers allow us to do more of same things faster. Typing, order processing, inventory management, production processes, number crunching are all managed more efficiently by computers. Added efficiency should translate into enhanced productivity. Put simply, same number of people can do more, faster, more cheaply with computers than they can without them. Yet reality begs to differ.

Two elements are often neglected in considering beneficial effects of IT.

The first is that concept of information technology comprises two very distinct economic activities: an all-purpose machine (the PC) and its enabling applications and a medium (the internet). Capital assets as distinct from media assets are governed by different economic principles, should be managed differently and be subject of different philosophical points of view.

Massive, double digit increases in productivity are feasible in manufacturing of computer hardware. The inevitable outcome is an exponential explosion in computing and networking power. The dual rules which govern IT - Moore's (a doubling of chip capacity and computing prowess every 18 months) and Metcalf's (the exponential increase in a network's processing ability as more computers connect to it) - also dictate a breathtaking pace of increased productivity in hardware cum software aspect of IT. This has been duly detected by Robert Gordon in his "Has 'New Economy' rendered productivity slowdown obsolete?".

But for this increased productivity to trickle down to rest of economy a few conditions have to be met.

The transition from old technologies to a new one (the computer renders many a technology obsolete) must not involve too much "creative destruction". The costs of getting rid of old hardware, software, of altering management techniques or adopting new ones, of shedding redundant manpower, of searching for new employees to replace unqualified or unqualifiable, of installing new hardware, software and of training new people in all levels of corporation are enormous. They must never exceed added benefits of newly introduced technology in long run. Hence crux of debate. Is IT more expensive to introduce, run and maintain than technologies that it so confidently aims to replace? Will new technologies be spun off core IT in a pace sufficient to compensate for disappearance of old ones? As technology mature, will it overcome its childhood maladies (lack of operational reliability, bad design, non-specificity, immaturity of first generation of computer users, absence of user friendliness and so on)?

Moreover, is IT an evolution or a veritable revolution? Does it merely allow us to do more of same only in a different way - or does it open up hitherto unheard of vistas for human imagination and creativity? The signals are mixed. IT did NOT succeed to do to human endeavour what electricity, internal combustion engine or even telegraph have done. It is also not clear at all that IT is a UNIVERSAL phenomenon suitable to all climes and mentalities. The penetration of both IT and medium it gave rise to (the internet) is not uniform throughout world even where purchasing power is similar and even among corporate class. Countries post communism should take all this into consideration. Their economies may be too obsolete and hidebound, poor and badly managed to absorb yet another critical change in form of IT. The introduction of IT into an ill-prepared market or corporation can be and often is counter-productive and growth-retarding.

The CYCLE OF THE INTERNET

Then, of course, there is Internet.

The internet runs on computers but it is related to them in same way that a TV show is related to a TV set. To bundle to two, as is often done today, obscures true picture and can often be very misleading. For instance: it is close to impossible to measure productivity in services sector, let alone is something as wildly informal and dynamic as internet. It is clear by now that internet is a medium and, as such, is subject to evolutionary cycle of its predecessors. Central and Eastern Europe has just entered this cycle while USA is most advanced.

The internet is simply latest in a series of networks which revolutionized our lives. A century before internet, telegraph and telephone have been similarly heralded as "global" and transforming.

So, what should CEE countries expect to happen to internet globally and, later, within their own territories? The issue here cannot be cast in terms of productivity. It is better to apply to it imagery of business cycle.

As we said, every medium of communications goes through same evolutionary cycle:

It starts with Anarchy - or The Public Phase.

At this stage, medium and resources attached to it are very cheap, accessible, under no regulatory constraints. The public sector steps in : higher education institutions, religious institutions, government, not for profit organizations, non governmental organizations (NGOs), trade unions, etc. Bedevilled by limited financial resources, they regard new medium as a cost effective way of disseminating their messages.