Isaac Asimov’s short story “Evidence” explores the ideal politician based on the Three Principles of Robotics and the ethical dilemmas that arise when the lines between humans and robots are blurred. It emphasizes that the virtues of robotic leaders are still important in the modern world.
Isaac Asimov is a science fiction writer who wrote the original novels for the movies I, Robot and Bicentennial Man, and has written many works set in a robotized future or depicting a human society that stretches across the universe. He was a writer who did not simply imagine future technological advances, but deeply explored the ethical and philosophical implications of these advances for human society. His works combine scientific imagination and social insight to provide readers with more than just entertainment, but deep reflection.
In particular, Asimov is known for proposing the Three Principles of Robotics in his works. These are the three principles of robotics: First, robots must not harm humans, or allow humans to be harmed by their actions or inactions. Second, robots must obey the commands of humans, except when those commands violate the first law. Third, robots must protect their own existence, except when such protection violates the first and second laws. These principles are not just a fictional device, but are actually being discussed as ethical guidelines in the development of artificial intelligence and robotics. Through these principles, Asimov explored the interaction between robots and humans, asking deep questions about the relationship between technology and humans in the future.
One of his many short stories, “Proof,” is a brief introduction. The story follows two mayoral candidates, Francis Quinn, a politician with a knack for sleight of hand, and Stephen Byerly, a former prosecutor. In the run-up to the election, Francis Quinn visits the planet’s only robotics company, US Robotics, and asks them to investigate the possibility that Stephen Byerly could be a robot. Her rationale is that no one has ever seen Stephen Byerly eat or drink anything.
Since robots with artificial intelligence are illegal on Earth, Alfred Lanning, the head researcher, tries to ignore Francis Quinn’s comments, but when Francis Quinn threatens him with the possibility that even such a rumor could damage the company, he decides to investigate. Alfred Lanning and robotic psychologist Susan Calvin visit Stephen Byerly and talk to him, but they find neither evidence that he is a robot nor evidence that he is a human, and instead realize that Francis Quinn is trying to use them to smear him.
With no income from US Robotics, Francis Quinn eventually spreads rumors about Stephen Byerly. Many of the people who have begun to believe that Stephen Byerly is a robot – he’s never been seen eating, among other things – start to disrupt his public speaking engagements. Stephen Byery invites one of the disruptors to come up to the podium. The person on the podium states the Three Principles of Robotics and taunts, “You won’t be able to hit me because you’re a robot.” Steven Byery is as polite as he can be and punches him, proving to everyone that he is a human.
The most interesting part of the story is Stephen Byerly’s conversation with Dr. Calvin, the robot psychologist, before he is sworn in as mayor. When Stephen Byerly thanks Dr. Calvin for the moment he recognized him as a human after seeing the incident on the stage, Dr. Calvin says to Stephen Byerly that his doubts were completely removed. “If a robot were to hold public office, it would be the best empty stomach. Because of the Three Principles of Robotics, there’s no need to worry about robots violating human rights, being dictatorial, taking bribes, or making mistakes. And after serving their term, they will quietly exit the political arena, because they know that people’s egos would be hurt by having a robot as a leader.”
With these words, Dr. Calvin’s conversation ends with a passing remark about a loophole in the evidence for Stephen Byerly’s humanity (which I won’t write about in detail because it’s an important twist in the novel). The novel ends with the question still hanging in the air as to whether Stephen Byerly is a man or a robot. This ending forces the reader to decide for themselves whether he is actually a robot or a human, while also asking them to reflect on what an “ideal human being” is.
In the novel, Stephen Byery is portrayed as the most idealized politician, and this idealization raises the suspicion that he could be a robot. What part of the Three Principles of Robotics, which govern robot behavior, leads us to think that the ideal person could be a robot? Principle 1, which states that robots cannot harm humans, represents protection or service to others. Principle 2, that robots should obey human commands, implies obedience to laws or norms, and Principle 3, that robots should protect themselves, is the instinct of self-survival and protection. In terms of the prioritization of these principles, the robot’s behavior depicts an altruistic human being and, taken as a whole, is not unlike the morals of an ideal human being. Therefore, if a politician like Stephen Byerly existed, many people would not hesitate to vote for him as a leader because of his robotic appearance.
What does it mean to be “robotic” in the modern world? Think of it in terms of the three robotics principles. Protection and service to others, which can be inferred from the first principle, requires leaders to show concern and respect for all groups of people. In the modern world, where the interests of different groups are complexly intertwined and their needs are diverse, people want their leaders to be able to look out for the interests of all social classes, rather than to be aligned with a particular group and only represent that group’s interests. Recent issues in the political arena, such as those related to universal welfare, show that there is a strong demand for leaders who are committed to the interests of society as a whole.
This is also reflected in the fact that issues such as women’s, children’s, and people with disabilities’ rights have become key issues in every election. These human rights issues are becoming more important in the modern world, and people increasingly want their leaders to be sensitive to them.
The concept of obedience, which can be inferred from the second principle, refers to the basic and thorough compliance that people demand from their leaders. Every election season, candidates are vetted for past offenses to ensure that they are law-abiding. This process is an important criterion for ensuring that a leader is someone who can be trusted to uphold laws and norms. In this principle, people also want to see their leaders fulfill their demands in good faith. For voters who elected leaders based on their promises, those promises are like their demands. Therefore, they want leaders to obey them by fulfilling their promises.
The manifesto movement, which has recently gained traction in Korea, can be understood in this context. During election campaigns, people examine the feasibility of the promises made by candidates, and if the promises are not feasible, they look for leaders who will fulfill them faithfully through the manifesto movement. As you can see, people want leaders who make promises they can fulfill and keep them.
The third principle, self-preservation, may seem less important than the other two. However, the fact that this principle is at the very end of the prioritization list is indicative of what people want in a leader. They want a leader who will prioritize others over themselves, that is, who will put the interests of others ahead of their own personal interests. Because leaders have so much power, there have always been leaders who have used that power to fulfill their own self-interests, both large and small. This is a great betrayal to the people, and it is a criterion for choosing the next leader, whether he or she is honest and just.
The basic attributes of robots can also be found in what we expect from leaders. First, robots are free of emotional bias, which means they can maintain an objective perspective. This is important for leaders in a society to make fair decisions without favoring any particular interest group. Another attribute of robots is that they don’t make mistakes. Because robots make decisions based on accurate data, they rarely make mistakes in the process. This is a very important quality given the amount of power leaders have. The negative impact of a poorly judged decision on society can be huge, and sometimes irreversible. Therefore, the unacceptability of a single mistake in a leader’s decision is a reason to want a robot-like leader.
Of course, the idea that robots will actually be leaders in the future is not a realistic possibility. No matter how advanced their intelligence becomes, they will never be able to match humans in creativity. Their intelligence can only find the best solution under the given conditions, not come up with new solutions or create new visions. For example, if a robot replaced U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a leader, it would not have been able to come up with creative and bold solutions like the New Deal. If a leader is unable to offer a new vision and lead people, the society will not progress.
Nevertheless, the need for robotic leaders will continue, because the moral virtues that these leaders must possess are still important for human leaders. In addition to providing people with a vision of hope, the desire for a “robotic” leader to emerge and lead society is an expression of a longing for an ideal leader while recognizing the limitations and weaknesses of human beings.
