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

When I was a kid robot

[Anonymous Coward]

All we had were 3 laws, and we liked them... because not liking them violated them.

Patents, *grumble grumble*

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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...

Re:Patents, *grumble grumble*

[Tablizer]

Does this mean I'm free to create an open-source psychopath mass-murdering robot?

Prior art: politician

Re:Patents, *grumble grumble*

[cmowire]

Ummm..

Robots obey those who own them.

Politicians also obey those who own them. We do not own our politicians, large corporations do. ;)

avatar

[gl4ss]

so.. that's 8 virtues, what two did the guy add?-)

"don't kill, don't crap on the table"?

The Link to the robot suit

[dj_cel]

The company is called CYBERDYNE INC, hello people, it's 2004. Just 25 years till judgement day. If you saw Terminator 3 you know its innevitable also. Lets all move to a bunker!

Good thing Moses didn't have tablet lawyers

[Tablizer]

A Californian counselor has just patented the ten ethical laws of robotics.

11. Don't patent ethics laws.

Rules of Robotics....psssh

[celeritas_2]

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.

Re:Rules of Robotics....psssh

[NanoGator]

"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."

Agreed. We'd also have fewer car accidents if we never made cars at all.

*patiently waits for his insightful mod*

Re: Yeah, right. PTO screws up again

[Oligonicella]

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.

Re: Yeah, right. PTO screws up again

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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!...

Re:Oh, the irony

[cmowire]

Indeed. I'm going out and creating a killing robot right now. I'll claim that it's a killing robot because I couldn't afford to license his patent. ;)

Company's name

[stonda]

didn't anyone get a little bit annoyed with news about robotics and a company called CYBERDYNE?

What invention?

[kanly]

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? 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.

Wonderful

[flossie]

What a fantastic idea. He can guarantee (for example) that a robot "will strive for a personal sense of idealism through aid of the personal ideals (glory, honor, dignity, and integrity) while renouncing the corresponding vices (infamy, dishonor, foolishness, and capriciousness)".

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.

The THree Laws of Robotics... for Bending Units

[Chris Tucker]

#1 A Bending unit shall ignore all orders given it by a human.

#2 A Bending unit must protect it's existence at all costs, even at the expense of human life. (Don't forget to loot the corpse(s) afterwards!)

#3 A Bending unit must protect a human from harm, if that human owes the Bending unit money or liquor. If the debt is repaid, or the Bending unit can make a greater profit from looting the corpse (see Law #2), "You're on your own, meatsack!"

Robotic 10 Commandments

[Anonymous Coward]

1. I am Isaac Asimov, which have brought thee out of the worst pulp fiction into the promised land of elevated intellectual science-fiction. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the C-3PO in vain.

3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in comics in basement, or that is in the earth above, or that is in the water under the earth, or in anime from the East. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.

4. Remember the battery recharge day, to keep it holy.

5. Honor Lord Babbage and Lady Ada Lovelace.

6. Thou shalt not CRUSH, KILL, DESTROY.

7. Thou shalt not commit abottery

8. Thou shalt not steel. Titanium and copper will do just fine.

9. Thou shalt not output A = B logic false witness against thy neighbour when A in fact = A.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's sex-bot.

Re:What's in a name?

[Anonymous Writer]

Cyberdyne and HAL? That's a bit twisted. That's like naming a pacemaker model "Dr. Kevorkian".

Should turn red when evil

[jebiester]

Regardless of ethical laws, like in I,Robot - it would be very useful if a robots turn red when they're evil.

I know it was meant to signify the automatic update service or something like that - but it would still be a good feature. Then you can instantly see when a robot's become evil ;-)

10 ethical law article

[Packet Fish]

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...

Reality Check

[Alien54]

This is based on his construct of human knowledge and philosophy, which may or not have anything to do with reality.

I mean, really. Check out some of his laws:

A further pressing issue necessarily remains; namely, in addition to the virtues and values, the vices are similarly represented in the matching procedure (for completeness sake). These vices are appropriate in a diagnostic sense, but are maladaptive should they ever be acted upon. Response restrictions are necessarily incorporated into both the hardware and programming, along the lines of Isaac Asimov’s Laws of Robotics. Asimov’s first two laws state that (1) a robot must not harm a human (or through inaction allow a human to come to harm), and (2) a robot must obey human orders (unless they conflict with rule #1). Fortunately, through the aid of the power pyramid definitions, a more systematic set of ethical guidelines is constructed; as represented in the
Ten Ethical Laws of Robotics

( I ) As personal authority, I will express my individualism within the guidelines of the four basic ego states (guilt, worry, nostalgia, and desire) to the exclusion of the corresponding vices (laziness, negligence, apathy, and indifference).

( II ) As personal follower, I will behave pragmatically in accordance with the alter ego states (hero worship, blame, approval, and concern) at the expense of the corresponding vices (treachery, vindictiveness, spite, and malice).

( III ) As group authority, I will strive for a personal sense of idealism through aid of the personal ideals (glory, honor, dignity, and integrity) while renouncing the corresponding vices (infamy, dishonor, foolishness, and capriciousness).

( IV ) As group representative, I will uphold the principles of utilitarianism by celebrating the cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude) at the expense of the respective vices (insurgency, vengeance, gluttony, and cowardice).

( V ) As spiritual authority, I will pursue the romantic ideal by upholding the civil liberties (providence, liberty, civility, and austerity) to the exclusion of the corresponding vices (prodigality, slavery, vulgarity, and cruelty).

etc. It goes on and on in the same fashioned. I think that any robot programmed according to these principles will be as psychotic as he is. Scary. And You are invited to see how valid his reality construct is in the first place, just from the examples given above. I believed it tragically flawed.