Jake Schreier
Robot & Frank

THE LAWS OF ROBOTICS. We quote from memory the three laws of robotics. 1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the first law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law.

To these, Asimov later added a fourth law, the 'Zero Law', which hierarchically supersedes the other three (which are consequently modified) and states that, 'A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.'

This was introduced at a time when, after the colonization of the ten space worlds, mankind decided to resume space travel and expand into the cosmos to ensure its survival as a species amid increasingly precarious living conditions on dear old planet Earth.

In practice, this fourth law would give robots, or rather what would become the robot par excellence, namely Daneel R. Olivaw—after receiving from Giskard the abilities and power to directly perceive human minds and influence them at the emotional and memory level—means and capabilities to watch over all humanity through the centuries, guaranteeing and safeguarding the survival and continuation, the development of the species. Nonetheless, Daneel R. Olivaw would perform his functions (always strictly adhering to the four laws) in secrecy, never revealing either his identity or his powers. This is because, generally, the figure of robots in Asimov's world, as in ours, is not always viewed and perceived positively by humans.

NEO-LUDDISM. Here, we talk about hostility and what constitutes a true fear. This doesn’t refer so much to scenarios of scary and frightening imagination (I think of 'V', the American television series that aired in Italy in the mid-eighties and terrified me), as to looking at innovations in production systems and services where, according to an increasingly widespread school of thought, machines are replacing or are destined over time to completely replace humans.

This necessarily leads to reflections pertinent to the social sphere itself and related to a phenomenon that, rather than being the future, is already the present. At the center, it is evident, is the fear that robots could replace humans in every activity, causing social disorders and inconveniences (primarily unemployment). Secondly, in everyone's subconscious is the fear that they could one day replace humans entirely: dominate them.

One of the most used terms to describe this movement of hostility toward the development of mechanization and robotics is neo-Luddism. It's a desire that, evidently, recalls that of the industrialization period, during which there was strong opposition to what was and became the factory system. Today, like then, it is believed that we will have to fight at all costs against this robotization and automation to prevent these from leading to extreme and irreversible consequences.

This viewpoint is, evidently, absolutely negative, and I regard it with some skepticism. In the sense that I do not fully understand the reasons. While paying attention to what are social dynamics, which I consider always and in any case a priority issue, I obviously have no fear that machines might one day dominate humans or that humans might completely surrender to them, ending up with an attitude we could associate with the Eloi of H.G. Wells. On the contrary, I say, what if these innovations - as they should - prove to be an opportunity. Something positive that could instead improve the overall quality of our lives.

My stance, dictated by practical considerations, is that a machine can never completely replace a human, nor, attention, perform any work activity with adequate competence, especially when we might be in the presence of an experienced worker trained over the years and therefore possessing adequate preparation. Humans are a more complex system than any machine which, despite the inputs it can receive, will always receive them in limited quantities in an increasingly dynamic and changing social and working context where the keywords are 'adaptability' (often unfortunately interpreted negatively) and autonomy. Apart from this, historically, I suspect the factory process has brought some important content to our society, and I refer not only to production systems but also to social and thought dynamics. We are talking about something that was revolutionary from every point of view.

ROBOT & FRANK. My view, evidently, could be defined as somewhat optimistic, but it's good to emphasize, as far as I'm concerned, that I do not exclude the emergence of problems of any kind—be they social, cultural, or economic—I just say that I consider humans capable of overcoming any problem, and in this sense, as the processes of robotization and automation would still be the work of humans, of overcoming themselves.

There is an optimistic vision regarding robots (but at this point also humans) even in this film by Jack Schreier, titled 'Robot & Frank'. The film was released in 2012 and premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, which for me is always a real treasure trove of good films to watch, where it won the Alfred P. Sloan award, which is no coincidence, as it’s dedicated to films focused on the theme of science and technology and bears the name of the entrepreneur Alfred Sloan, a historical figure concerning General Motors.

The film's protagonists, set in a near future and which I would consider a light science fiction work, enough to make one think of what could easily be a slightly longer episode taken from the series 'The Twilight Zone', are precisely Frank, an elderly man who lives alone and is affected by the early symptoms of Alzheimer’s, and a humanoid robot, which is gifted to him by his children (James Marsden and Liv Tyler) to take care of him.

Initially skeptical about his children's choice, with whom he has never had a strong bond and which is almost imposed on him, Frank will eventually discover that the robot is more than just an appliance or a caregiver. The robot, although an object of programming and accustomed to reasoning according to standards, shows qualities of initiative and adaptability to Frank's needs (played, by the way, by an excellent Frank Langella), resulting in the birth of a friendship and a relationship of complicity between the two that is stronger than any Frank could ever achieve in his life.

And it is precisely this complicity, in a plot yet to be discovered and which at this point is not worth revealing, that will somehow ignite a new spark in the old and grumpy Frank, ultimately giving him that vitality and liveliness that was thought lost and likely irretrievable in a process of physical and mental decay that seemed irreversible. Instead, the robot will give Frank not so much a new youth, but that strength to continue wanting to live his life. But isn't that ultimately what friends are for?

ROBOTS FOR SOCIAL GOOD. It is, of course, not a film with deep existential content, but some reflection as far as I'm concerned is obligatory. Indeed, in this case, these are considerations that arose spontaneously in me and also looking at what could be situations from my personal life. Watching 'Robot & Frank', I primarily thought of my father (who moreover bears a certain resemblance to Frank Langella) and consequently all those elderly people who are alone or who, with retirement, somehow feel lost and have lost that 'routine'—sometimes, often, almost always purely forced—that practically constituted the integral part of their existence, then begin that aging process that today appears somewhat postponed compared to what it could have been even just fifty years ago.

Without delving too deeply into my personal affairs, my father is 61 years old. Having suffered from a heart attack last September but fortunately recovered and now in good health, since then he has somehow begun to feel the effects of what we might consider aging. This at an age, if we will, still relatively young by contemporary standards. After the blow suffered in September, he has, however, returned to work, albeit limiting his work hours and those recurring habits that are considered to be avoided for anyone who has had a heart attack (but also not) such as drinking alcohol and/or smoking.

Of course, I do not consider all this in a negative light. I believe these limits he had to set are something inevitable, but given the possibility of seeing him stop working altogether or living a 'constrained' life deprived of what have always been his habits, I wonder how much this can actually benefit his health or if it instead accelerates an aging process. As in many cases happens with retirement, which without wanting to adopt philosophies that would strip away pensions from those who have worked their whole lives, it is evident that in many cases it turns out to be something deleterious. The point is clearly that very often, but I say almost always and mind you this time I refer also to myself and despite chronologically being far from being considered elderly, our lives are absorbed by mechanisms that are, well, automatic. So much so that we ourselves become robots, those robots that could scare us for the reasons mentioned earlier.

Slaves to a routine and rules that are imposed on us or that we decide to impose on ourselves, we become inflexible, and the alteration of this balance can become in many cases something difficult to overcome, especially clearly if, as is often inevitable in these cases, realities like loneliness or isolation set in.

The issue is obviously very long and would deserve to be discussed extensively from different aspects and viewpoints. But if I think back to what we said earlier about work processes, for instance, and work, it is inevitable, constitutes a centerpiece of an individual's life, so concerning our lives and in a society where times are increasingly tight so much that it often seems almost suffocating, then I think that perhaps all of us would need a 'robot', that is, someone to take care of us - who, indeed, tells us and makes us understand that we must take care of ourselves and our lives. Because after all, if we do not do it ourselves, there will never be anyone who can, even if they wanted to, do it for us. Perhaps in this case, a factor like old age doesn’t matter much. I would rather talk of 'aging,' but that’s because you can be or feel old even at thirty.