Slashdot Mirror
New Robots and the Ten Ethical Laws Of Robotics
Roland Piquepaille writes "The robotics actuality is pretty rich these days. Besides the fighting robots of Robo-One and the flying microrobots from Epson (the best picture is at Ananova), here are some the latest intriguing news in robotics. In Japan, Yoshiyuki Sankai has built a robot suit, called Hybrid Assistive Limb-3 (or HAL-3), designed to help disabled or elderly people. In the U.S., Ohio State University is developing a robotic tomato harvester for the J.F. Kennedy Space Center while Northrop Grumman received $1 billion from the Pentagon to build a new robotic fighter. I kept the best for the end. A Californian counselor has just patented the ten ethical laws of robotics. A good read for a Sunday, if you can understand what he means. This summary only focuses on HAL-3 and one of the most incredible patents I've ever seen, so please read the above articles for more information about the other subjects."
A Californian counselor has just patented the ten ethical laws of robotics.
Does this mean I'm free to create an open-source psychopath mass-murdering robot?
Also, I think perhaps there's prior art on 3 of the 10 patented laws... Might have to do some research here...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
The rules of robotics are just another form of computer security, and we all know how well that works. No matter how secure, how deeply coded, the rules are, the only way to have robots that don't have the capability to hurt people is to not make robots at all.
-- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.
Having gone to his website and read his pap, I'll post this money quote:
"It still remains to be determined, however, the best means towards programming these definitions into the AI format: particularly in light of the current trends involved in computer design."
Basically, he buried some psuedo-scientific thoughts into legalese and then patented it without any idea as to how to implement same.
One can certainly tell from the sloppy web-page that he has no idea of what he is doing.
This patent is vapor-ware with a strong odor of crap.
Basically, he buried some psuedo-scientific thoughts into legalese and then patented it without any idea as to how to implement same.
The real question that nobody seems to ask is : HOW THE FUCK DOES THE USPTO EVEN CONSIDER SUCH APPLICATIONS?
And a related side question is, how the fuck does the USPTO grant so many obvious/devious/retarded/nonsensical patents? I know they don't have Einsteins on the payroll to review them, but come on!...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
It used to be that when you patented something, you had to supply enough information for anyone to produce an instance of the patented invention. From the US PTO:
Why don't they enforce this? I know that many folks, myself included, think most computer patents are utterly bogus. I think a proper enforcement of this rule would go a long way toward fixing the problem. If it doesn't compile, you shouldn't be able to patent it. The text of this patent reads more like a philosophy book than a technical invention.
Now, if he could just briefly define all those terms, set up some rigourous boundaries that make it easy to determine when whether something is honourable or dishonourable, and maybe a filter to determine whether or not a course of action is foolish.
Then perhaps he could run this patent through the filter.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Here is a tip for all of you budding reporters out there. When you are going to write an article about the 10 ethical laws of robotics, it might be a good idea to include at least one of the laws in the article. Especially if you were able to find space to include someone else's laws, a discussion of that person's books, and information about one of the movie stars who appears in a movie that is loosely based on those books.
Just a hint...