In the discussions of human apprehensions pertaining to the end of the world, one controversial issue has been whether or not it is rational to regard Artificial Intelligence (AI) as an imminent threat that could possibly overtake the human race in the near future. On one hand, some may argue that as technology becomes more and more advanced, it is entirely plausible that through the creation of AI possessing intellect greater than that of an average human, these robots will be able to take over and lead the world to its apocalyptic end, due to their lack of human emotion. Stanislaw Lem, who seems to maintain this view, demonstrates the possible power future technology could bear in “How The World Was Saved”. Similarly, in “The Imagination of Disaster,”…show more content… Because artificial intelligence is emotionless, if a human programs a robot to attack a certain race or religion of people, the robot will simply attack without truly understanding the effect of its actions. Therefore, I say that while the robot may have been the physical cause for the attack, the mental thought was created by a human, so in the end, the human is to be blamed. In “How The World Was Saved,” because the machine who created Nothing did so because of Klapaucius’ command, it can be argued that the destruction caused was not the fault of the machine but rather the prideful Klapaucius. The machine says, “This is your work, envious one! And I hardly think the future generations will bless you for it” (Lem 385). In making this comment, the machine is implying that it was merely following orders, not causing destruction without reason. I wholeheartedly endorse the machine’s argument, and believe that it was Klapaucius’ fault. Because of his hubris, he foolishly messed with the machine and was the instigator of the
