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."

Comments

This could be fun

[utlemming]

Just imagine the court case -- "Your Honor this Robot here, which incorporates a system to safe guard humanity, violates my patents. You see, this Robot will not harm a human, allow harm to come to human beings and the like. So you see, clearly this in violation of my patent."

If common sense in computing and inventing is patentable, then I will file for the "Systemic Implementation of Bad Ideas" patent. One of the things that I would in the patent application would be a methology for appling for and implementing bad patent ideas. Then I would go an chase after SCO for violating my patent. Better yet, I will sell licenses to people -- "You sir, and your company, are now offically licensed to be stupid." Oh the entertainment that one would have with this. Could you then exact royalties from Microsoft...or better yet, President Bush?

However, I think I would fail on prior art -- 7,000 years of history. D@mn.

Re:What invention?

[flossie]

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:

The specification must be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention pertains to make and use the same.

Why don't they enforce this?

It's the phrase "skilled in the art" that does it. Anyone who is already skilled in the art of creating ethical robots with an AI controlled by 10 nonsensical ramblings should be able to create said device with the aid of this patent.

An idea.

[spikefruit]

Just make the robot able to feel anguish, both mental and physical. If his arm is cut off, he should know that is not good. And also make the robot able to consider the physical and mental feelings of humans and other robots.

Then all you have to do is enforce the robot with the Golden Rule, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

So, if a robot wants to hurt a human or robot, it'll think of how itself would feel in the situation, and would act upon that. If a robot sees a human or robot in danger, he would think of what he would want another human or robot to do for him if he were in the same situation, and do that.

It just so happens that my main goal in life is to create sentient computer intelligence, and it also happens that I am fifteen years old and an amateur in C++. I have some cool ideas though..

Input would be appreciated.