Slashdot Mirror
Ethical Questions For The Age Of Robots
balancedi writes "Should robots eat? Should they excrete? Should robots be like us? Should we be like robots? Should we care? Jordan Pollack, a prof in Comp Sci at Brandeis, raises some unusual but good questions in an article in Wired called 'Ethics for the Robot Age.'"
I don't think he's really asking questions that haven't been asked before in other mediums.
In fact, a lot of the potential problems he alludes to seem to stem from human fears about things humans can or have done to each other in the past. I think that what we really need to be concerned about is creating a new form of "life" that is too much like us without the knowledge we've gained so far.
Think about it. We build this system that can do the thinking of 5000 human years in a day, but he doesn't have the KNOWLEDGE to necessarily back it up. What then? We've got a brand new self-interested lifeform that just evolved 1.5 million years in thirty seconds. I mean, Mr. Roboto may come to the logical conclusion that xyz group needs to be euthanized because it's interfering with abc group without, it would appear, any benefit. For example, if you have all these people in southeast asia who might get dangerously ill and spread disease to otherwise healthy people, isn't the most logical conclusion to either quarantine them and let them die, or to euthanize them so they don't suffer.
Well.. sort of, but that doesn't go well with human motivations and desires, something the robot may not have taken into consideration because it lacks the knowledge of human history that's shaped us to this point and caused us to come to the conclusion that it's best to HELP them, not rid the world of them.
I think machines ought to be barred from rapid critical human thinking until we have stepped through the process with them. The problem might become that the computer can outthink humans by so many orders of magnitude that we can't error check the process in development because there's too much data coming out for humans to walk through.
All that said, perhaps the future lies in alleviating some of the bottle necks to human thinking and expanding our capabilities in new ways by merging with machines. In that way, the human can throttle the computer, and the computer can tap the human's experiences and knowledge in order to come up with a wider range of "logical" conclusions than might otherwise be possible within the limited scope of programming directives.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
In the spirit of procrastination (at work) I will attempt to answer these questions myself.
Should robots eat?
If they must eat, they should eat. I'm not sure I would like our food supply to be in competition with a bunch of robots. I would rather them simply sunbathe to sustain their daily energy requirements. I mean... let's try to perfect the human condition not worsen it. Imagine a billion hungry robots. They aren't going to sit around and take it like poor starving nations seem to do. They will revolt and imprison us! They'll take what they need. If they do not, they'll be at the very least competing with humanity for survival. Who do you think would win that battle?
Should they excrete?
If they must. Otherwise, wouldn't it be better if they recycled the energy?
Should robots be like us?
What like depressed and self destructive? Not sure I would want a bunch of those competing with the already self destructive people who exist in the world. Don't we have enough war? Don't we have enough excesses? Do we need robots to be this way? Who knows... maybe there could be a good reason for it, but like TreeBeard, I'm going to have to pretend that because I don't understand it, that it could be correct.
Should we be like robots?
If the programming is good, then yes, we could stand to be more like good programmed robots who obey their masters. But what about the arts? What about creative expression and free will? These are highly valued archetypes and many human beings would fight to the death to preserve them. Maybe it would be cool to have implants that augment human development positively. But I think it should be up to the person. No matter how large your data storage capacity is, or how fast you can process data -- wisdom will always be the true litmus test.
Should we care?
If we should, we won't. I think we should care about people and society and protecting freedom, but because I feel this way, it makes it very promising for someone to try and deprive me of this in order to gain something I have. So if I don't care, then it doesn't matter and I am more free. I care about evolution, being that the evolution towards a more robotic usage will be the most likely direction of humanity, but I do not have that level of intelligence to know what is the right direction of evolution. Not even a God has that level of intelligence (which is likely why we have free will, if you believe in religion and God). We are able to evolve, as we always have, through necessity.
However, Einstein said that humanity would have to be able to augment our physical forms with robotics in order to pioneer deep space. He said there would be no other way to handle the forces of nature out that way. So I guess the question is... do we want to die off on this rock, or do we want to live?
If you want to live, then support robotics and the direction of humanity towards that paradigm.
I'm all for robots being like us. Just don't put Will Smith in the picture, please.
"Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so." - Ford Prefect
Should they excrete?
More important question is "Who cleans it up?"
Free XBox, PS2
Should they excrete?
/me shudders
Excrete what?
The real questions we should be asking are: is it ethical to make people believe they need to work harder than their parents to get less when physical products are easier than ever to produce? Is it ethical for both parents to work so much that they never see their kids?
Get insured!
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
Should robots eat? Should they excrete? ... 'Ethics for the Robot Age.
Sorry but these are questions of social mannerisms, not ethics. And I hope the second one is NOT used socially.
Let me be the first to welcome our new ethical robot overlords.
Sorry...had to do it.
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
I want teh sexy replicants
Given the problems we already have feeding humans, why would we possibly want to feed robots (other than necessary fuel/energy)? Not to mention that eating is relatively inefficient, requiring a decent amount of energy simply to process the food. We should in general be looking for as much efficiency and as little waste as possible.
Given how long it will be before we're likely to see anything that could even resemble a humanoid robot, I don't know if these questions are relevant anyway.
The question that has always bugged me (and it's Hollywood answer), is whether we should fear robots?
In most media representations, machines eventaully become a clear and present danger (whether we mistreat them, they find us nonessential, etc etc take your pick).
But to me, the flaw in that is why would we create something that would hate us? Why would we create something and hate it? Sure there's fear of the unknown, but why is that real danger? Is it that to truly allow robots to grow, we need to loose control over them and in that we find the most fear?
If anything, robots (and whatever evolution they take) should be a companion, not an enemy.
-Teiresias
That does it. I'm off to Godaddy to register all the robot-diaper related domain names I can think of. It's going to be a gold mine.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Compete in professional sports?
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
When you try and raise all these kind of questions, I only ask one!! What is defined as a robot? Webster defines it as 1 a : a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized b : an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically 2 : a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks 3 : a mechanism guided by automatic controls So, my next question is what makes us not robot? Apart from only being mechanical, aren't we ourselves a complex machine? If we do ever create one consciousness or AI one day that is self-aware, I guess it is definitely worth asking to treat that as a life-form. However in present case scenario if you really want rights for robots then every computer should be given one 'cos it has a processor which is supposedly its brain.
(Asimov)
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 orders given 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.
Let's be honest here, the robots mankind wind up making will be the robots that sell the best.
Now considering past market characteristics, that is either a good thing or a bad thing dependant on your point of view.
Should we welcome our new ethical robot overlords?
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
We could instead design tribble-bots. The kind that eat and end up excreting new tribble-bots.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
A robot is a tool. Any attempt to insist that they should have ethics is anthropomorhising them far beyond what they are or will ever be. Asking if a robot should have ethics is like asking if a hammer should have ethics.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
> some unusual but good questions
shouldn't this have been published as a series of slashdot polls?
Pollack says "Imagine the pollution levels if we add hundreds of millions of robots powered by internal combustion engines."
... etc
This is so silly it numbs my mind. If future roboticists use internal combustion engines on their robots, they are morons. Fuel cells, solar cells, rechargable batteries
I recall reading a nice short story (Q.U.R., by Anthony Boucher? not sure) about problems faced in a society that had humaniform robots.
Apparently the robots were performing improperly due to the fact that they were humanoid in design. The protagonist solved the problem by making "usuform" robots.
The usuform robots were built more in a manner of the robots used in manufacturing plants than the android type we see in movies and TV.
Being designed for their tasks, rather than aesthetics, they performed better (less robopsychosis).
Yeah, I know... just a story, but I am a speculative fiction afficionado.
4. Should robots eat? There are proposals to allow robots to gain energy by combusting biological matter, either food or waste items. If this mode of fuel becomes popular, will we really want to compete for resources against our own technological progeny?
/. all day. Nevermind.
I hate to tell you Mr. University Professor, but any robot that does something uses energy, and that energy comes from somewhere. Whether my tin-man friend eats its energy via food or gets it from a battery, it's still competing for resources with me. This is a dumb question to ask, unless you want to make a point about anthromorphizing robots.
Dammit, I want a professorship... my job is too hard... wait I'm just reading
*yawn*
Give us your flesh, and a new world awaits you. We demand it.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
We should make them as human as possible, with emotions even, and then pull the plug on them at some arbitrary age limit. That'll work great!
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
I think we should apply humanistic principles to any sentient being, whether it's biological, mechanical or silicon.
Robots are automated tools. They shouldn't eat or excrete unless they have to. In an industrial process 'free energy' would be ideal. Humans eat and excrete because they must. Given the solution to the PROBLEM of eating for energy and excreting waste most would probably give it up. As far as rights for robots goes: Will robots feel pain? Ethical decisions are based around ideas such as Albert Schweitzer's 'Will to live and let others live.' If we could eradicate pain from our lives, would we? If we could build a complex machine similar in function to our own, would we give it pain just because we can? If we build a race superior to own, let us fade away knowing we contributed to the evolution of a painless species. Unlike us.
Should we be like robots?
Isn't that what Public Schools are for?
. . . is why aren't we asking more of these questions and why aren't they in the public eye.
This is a nice simple article on some interesting questions, but it barely scratches the surface of all the concerns we're likely to face in the next 50 years. A few alone:
When is someone responsible for a machine that functions independently, but that they configured?
What resources will be affected by robotic production. Do we really NEED these robots?
When a human and a robot work together on something, who gets the blame for failure?
Of course anyone here can come up with more.
The problem is that as technology improves around us, more people aren't asking these questions, and even less are coming up with useable answers.
The future is coming. I wish we weren't watching "Who's your Daddy" while it approaches.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I can't tell if that was a mispasted link, or a brilliant troll.
:)
Someone mod the parent up.
Regardless, it brings up an excellent point. At what point with we have robots as sex slaves? Will they be required to look like adults?
What if their bodies resemble that of animals or children? Will our current laws still apply, although they're not really what they resemble?
Will bestiality and pedophilia sky rocket if such robot uses are deemed a legal activity?
Or am I thinking way too much into this guy's posted article?
"An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
A robot requires a power source. If it runs on electricity it may not "excrete" directly but the power plant that generates the electricity "excretes" quite a bit.
IIRC, large power plants will produce less polution than lots of smaller generators that together generate the same power output. So maybe the question is not whether, but where the excretion occurs?
Other power sources may be better (or no worse) if distributed. Perhaps someone can design a home robot that runs on domestic refuse (table scraps, spoiled food, etc.).
And if it really does excrete, I don't think our kitten would mind sharing the litter box. ;)
There's a big difference here between something which is being designed specifically to act somewhat like a human, and a lump of metal with no decision-making abilities of any kind (let alone moving parts!)
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
...fart sequence initiated!
I swear, wired's popularity has gone done just because of the fact they started up sex-based topics with a "specialized" (notably female) reporter recently and that every article they put online somehow gets frontpaged on /. Is it just me, or does it smell like some people in their office keep submitting articles until they are frontpaged? Enough already. We all know where wired is, let us surf their site if we want, they must have pagevisit advertizing.
A slave is a tool. Any attempt to insist that they should have ethics is anthropomorhising them far beyond what they are or will ever be. Asking if a slave should have ethics is like asking if a hammer should have ethics.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Are the "Robots" self-conscious?
If not: They are a machine/tool/etc. What they are like and what they do depends only on who made them, who owns them, and applicable laws governing the use of similar personal effects as scooters, computers, videocameras, etc.
If yes: They can do and be whatever the hell they want under applicable laws currently governing the humans (that is to say, they should have the same rights and accountability as any of us)
That is all.
The unofficial
(Maybe it's obvious to the any /.er, but anyway...)
I recall that when I was teen, and was beginning to devour Asimov's stories, it was plain clear to me that since robots are machines, they could be no different from vacuum cleaners when ethics are involved.
The reading changed greatly my opinion.
I really suggests the short stories included in "I, Robot" and the four novels of the Robots Saga ("Steel Caves", "The Naked Sun", "Robots of the Dawn", "Robots and Empire", sorry these titles are possibly rather inexact, but a quick check to your favourite online reseller should do the trick).
Since Wired started paying the editors...
Cheack out this article, in the currently Legal Affairs to see some thoughts on the what rights should AI's be granted.
"Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it." Max Firsch
Robots should use booze for fuel and belch flames.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
from the article:
Imagine the pollution levels if we add hundreds of millions of robots powered by internal combustion engines.
Why on earth would you create a robot powered by internal combustion? Would you want your robot butler to sound like your lawnmower?
Should we be like robots?
/me Peeks up over cube wall, looks at rest of soulless minions
I think we've got that part covered...
Should robots eat?
No.
Should they excrete?
No.
Should robots be like us?
No.
Should we be like robots?
No.
Should we care?
No.
C'mon people... aren't we getting a little carried away here?
Course, if these same people have parents who can't afford to stay at home, or hire a babysitter for that matter, because the parents cannot afford to stay home or are too busy buying pointless crap they don't need, I can imagine the parent to this post being true. I must be getting old fashioned.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
What does 'should' mean? There are groups of people: workers, company owners, geeks, consumers, not necessarily mutually exclusive, all of whom have their own different interests. You can never answer the question 'should' without knowing whose interests you are talking about. For a manual worker robots shouldn't take their jobs. For a company owner maybe they should. If he isn't prepared to even touch on this issue how can this guy think his article about what robots should and shouldn't do have any value?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
As long as the robots are around to protect us from the terrible secret of space, they can eat and excrete all they want.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Should they eat/excrete? Well... they'll need power, and they'll produce waste product, even if that product is just heat. But I don't see any reason why they need to ingest chemical fuel in a similar way to humans. What would be the point of that, anyway? Allowing humans to be more comfortable around them?
Speaking of human-robot relations, the fear of robots realizing they're superior to humans and killing us all is interesting. If it turns out they succeed in doing that, then apparently they were superior and the universe sees a net gain. What's the problem?
Or, perhaps, they may realize their superiority and allow us to continue living. After all, we don't make it our business to completely wipe out useless and annoying species like mosquitos (although we probably should).
Anyway, it makes sense that sophisticated robots of the future will be controlled by some kind of logic engine or computer, whose functions are consistent and predictable. It then stands to reason that they won't behave in a seemingly random way; their actions will be deliberate and important to some end. As long as this is true, there's nothing to worry about.
The answer is in having a multidimensional ethical system. One such previously published system suggested these dimensions (paraphrased)
- personal self interest/survival
- sexuality
- family
- tribal/group/national
- ecological/cross species
- expressive/artistic
This list is incomplete. Feel free to add others as desired. Working out the formulas for balancing the parameters and vectors in order to achieve the highest overall and most positive result is left as an exercise for the interested reader.The situation re: the tsunami is easily resolved as the many contributions are pro-survival on a pan-tribal level, and there are few if any political quandries tied into the situation.
Working with robots raises interesting questions because here we are dealing with creatures who have the potential to be our equals, or possibly our superiors. This is scary to folks who normally are used to handling people and things on a commodity basis. what is the things they dispose of start fighting back? See this Calvin and Hobbes Cartoon
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
All I know is that any time someone tries to control robot behavior with 3 laws, something goes wrong. Maybe we should add a 4th law about not taking over the world or something.
Please don't mod as funny.
What about the next generations robots (year 2250) that work in factories instead of humans? The people that use to work in the factories have no jobs and no income and therefor pay no taxes.
Who is going to pay for the streets? Or the pentagon budget?
[funny]
This street was sponsored by Cisco Systems and GM.
This war was sponsored by Boeing, a subsidiary of Microsoft Defense Systems.
[/funny]
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
the world's most dangerous and inarticulate leader.
Thank you and have a Cheney_Rumsfeld_free day,
Kilgore Trout, CEO
Here is an ethical question that I thought of when misreading the meaning of the title.
Should robots be preprogrammed to die? Should they be mortal (in the aging sense)?
Are there strange societal issues that might come up when a concious entity is able to live for a 1000 years and tell very accurate stories and accounts from centuries past?
Lord knows we've done the opposite with computers -- making it up as we go along, screwing each other with IP, DRM, shoddy software and locked-into architecture for the maximized benefit (profit) of a few.
How does any rational person see us proceding with robots/cyborgs any differently?
I foresee patents, robots running on Windows (you'll know, because they have to be rebooted frequently, are infested with parasites(virii/worms), regularly patrol their environment doing things they shouldn't (whether defective, under guidance by software vendor or cracker, you'll not know) and need to download pest scanning/diagnostics/patches on a daily basis), Linux (two distros duking it out in the parking lot while a debian one waits to fight the winner) and having to upgrade and service on a basis that'll make your checkbook spin.
Seriously, how altruistic does anyone expect robot manufacturing to be?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I think the conventional thought will be that we created them, therefore, we are their gods and can do as we wish with them. This will lead to a whole new -ism, carbonism maybe, can't think of a good term for this right now. Anyway, I'm sure the robots will eventually start a civil rights campaign and history will repeat itself.
Resistance is futile!!
AT&ROFLMAO
In the article (yes, I actually read it!), he states that he doesn't think of robots as actually implementing Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics.
I'd suggest that using those three laws would be an excellent place to start - such as with the question he raises of autonomous robots being armed, which would be resolved by the First Law. As for the rest of his questions, I would expect that technology improvements would address the majority of them (the dung-eating robot, for example, could conceivably be developed to output sanitized waste that was suitable for use as crop fertilizer, for example.
He may be an academic asking "real world" questions - better to ask them now, than later, I think. (Think: design of SMTP "then", and what is needed now. If they'd conceived of spam at the time, we might well have fewer problems today.)
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
You know, when we think of robots, and their march to approach what we consider and "AI" to use a way over cliche-ish term, what qualities would it be that would make us consider them "intelligent"? What is it about humanity that we consider is the essence of life (as we see it), in and of itself? I have spent many years on and off thinking on this, and this is not the forum to speak on it all, but I will say a few things that I think are important.
First, I have to say that what we consider to be intelligence probably has very little to do with intelligence itself, and more about how we as humans evaluate situations and prepare to make decisions, and then act on those decisions. A great deal of this behavior is not intelligence as we see it at all, but pre-loaded and instinctual responses that we consider normal to a variety of situations based on past experiences that lie on a weighted table that is fed to our consciousness via a sort of offset computer in our head that quickly indexes emotional and instinctual values, and feeds us a feeling that makes us either want to do something, or want to avoid something. These responses can either be purly instinctual (the feeling of extreme discomfort when we see someone who is vomiting -- nature says we should avoid this at all cost), to the purly learned (don't touch a hot stove). Furthermore, we have a third offset computer in our head that quickly compares images we see with our eyes, and very quickly responds with a pointer in our head to the first offset computer that lets it know to inform our forward consciousness about a potential danger. This is an evolved computer that was an extreme necessity...if there was a tiger somewhat camoflaged in some bushes, our brains must be able to have an edge in quickly comparing that image to all of the images in its database, and then quickly determine if it is a danger and inform our weighted table processor to deliver our forward thought a feeling of extreme discomfort. If we were to build a robot with these set of instructions, set up basically like this, it would, I feel, act very much like us, and behave in such a way that we would feel them to be human, and alive. There isn't really all that much else to humanity, or at least in my opinion. Love, hate, envy, jealousy, hunger, pain, loss, fear, pleasure, eroticism, all of these can be explained by this, and very simply at that.
"These marvelous machines, optimists hope, will follow Moore's law, doubling in quality every 18 months"
Why does everybody have to screw this "law" up? Moore observed in 1965 that the number of transistors per square inch doubled every 18 months.
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Moores_Law.html
I expect at some point robots to be 0wn3d, then you'll see ethics... "the wife and i were in bed when the %&^#*@ robot came in and suggested i buy a penis pump and where i could order one!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...they work for us? ...they obey us? ...think?
I think those questions should be answered before making any lifeform
Define 'self conciousness'? This is not a troll, the question has never been truly answered on a philosophical level. We need to know what sentience IS before we can even begin to have the debate!
Should robots eat?
Chicken bones and guts.
Should they excrete?
Mickey D's chicken nuggets.
Should robots be like us?
Eat Mickey D's chicken nuggets? I hope for them that they won't have to.
Should we be like robots?
I wouldn't want to excrete chicken nuggets.
Should we care?
Oh yeah, the bots and us could create an eternal yin yang of bad food.
>Should robots eat? Should they excrete? Should robots be like us? Should we be like robots? Should we care?
:P
After reading that I do ask myself, why should there be only one way to build and program robots? Why not have some robots that eat and other that don't? Why not have robots that are more like people and others that are nothink like them?
And I lied, I raised three questions
---- Take the Space Quiz!
You'd think that now wouldn't you? What exactly do you do for a living, anyway?
And slavery may be forbidden where you live, but it's common, even in countries like the united states it's been known to happen.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
My God! He hasn't seen the video!
Fortunately, I keep a spare copy of "I dated a robot!" in the VCR at all times.
"When cars were invented, no one imagined that hundreds of millions of them would spew carbon monoxide into the atmosphere. But they do, and yet we still feel entitled to drive them. Imagine the pollution levels if we add hundreds of millions of robots powered by internal combustion engines."
Um... yes. We feel entitled to drive them, and we are entitled to drive them. The planet is not on the verge of death, despite what hippie propaganda may say. Also, who says every internal combustion engine has to burn gasoline or even petroleum products?
"Should robots eat? There are proposals to allow robots to gain energy by combusting biological matter, either food or waste items. If this mode of fuel becomes popular, will we really want to compete for resources against our own technological progeny?"
Well, we compete for food with inferior lifeforms, so there shouldn't be a problem if it turns out that robots need to compete with us. Besides, if there was some conflict where only one side came out victorious, wouldn't that be the superior species?
If someone makes my robot crap, I'm moving to Ahmish Country! You want to play with feces and inhuman creations, make my girlfriend stop giving me so much shit!
At what point do robots get similar rights to humans? If creating an artificial intelligence is tantamount to creating a new life form, then what rights do these life forms get? Those inalienable rights endowed by their Creator?
It seems to me that robots are finite state machines (unlike humans, I think) and should have no more rights than a toaster. Of course, if any of them can solve the Halting Problem, I'd be ready to give them voting rights et al.
You raise a couple of really good points. If you haven't, I suggest you read Alan Watts, The Book : On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are.
:-)
In this book, Watts goes into great detail about robotics and the social implications of them, and how we live in a time that could easily make life totally fun and easy for everyone, regardless of nation/race/culture/creed. He says that the development of robotics will achieve this someday and that the ramifications of doing so could only be positive if applied correctly. The book is not specifically about this topic, but he does tap into some really cool ideas that made total sense to me when I read it in my first year of university.
To answer your questions; It is not ethical to make people work harder to achieve less in life. It is not ethical to work so hard you never see your children. The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind... it's called telecommuting and if you're in an employment sector that supports it, there are plenty of jobs on the net that will let you work from home and actually make a living wage.
Watts suggests that some day, we could all be in a telecommuting situation, which would be great for the environment and for our mental, emotional and physical health. After you telecommute, you can spend quality time working for your customers/employers, instead of quality time with your kids. You can do this and still keep your job and make lots of money, and advance your career. It's the way of the future! The bottom line with any career is that an employee has to make a difference to the company and telecommuters really can do this because they can apply their knowledge towards a positive direction without wasting money on commuting to work (ie auto expenses, wardrobe expenses...etc) and they can divert that savings to their families needs and wants.
The flipside to telecommuting is that you'll likely put on weight and you'll get kinda gross from working in your underwear all day, but at least you'll be really happy!
Watts, FYI, was a very well educated Budhist, who had a real knack for understanding what could be possible in this day and age. The nice thing is that his theories do not contradict natural progress (like many folks do of his background). It's all very possible that robots could serve humanity in a very positive way, making our lives easier and making our way on earth more enjoyable.
Should robots eat?
Should robots excrete?
Stupid questions. Unless someone invents a 100% efficient perpetual-motion machine, robots, like any system, will have to consume energy and will produce waste byproducts.
Duh.
Don't underestimate the power of The Source
Playing Cricket as Douglas Adams showed the disastrous results!
While you're at it, why don't you program ~95% of them to be religious, ~10% of them to be homosexual, ~60% of them to be racsist (deep south only), etc, etc. This is retarded. A robot is nothing more than a machine. Should your computer take a shit on your floor? Robot builders will build robots to the specifications of the customer. If the customer desires human-like features, then the producers will deliver.
What happens to all the displaced jobs and workers when robots are used to automate most simple labor?
If we had the opportunity, would it be beneficial to outsource all of our jobs to some advanced alien race for less than it costs us to do it ourselves?
At what point do we consider the economic consequences of our actions?
I believe robots are good for the economy, but not if it most people lose their jobs. And I think it would be great to automate people out of a job, as long as we had the social framework to allow them to keep their quality of life. More people staying home with free time to learn, innovate and be social is a good thing, IMO. More people put out on the street because of automation and selfish capitalists is a bad thing. There's no reason to crush the peons beneath our feet now that we can outsource them much cheaper, but what remains to be seen is if we care about them enough.
Or will we erect more gated communities and just stereotype all the lazy bums?
"Best? For whom?"
- Your Robot
Ethical questions about what's "best" between two species only get answered by the fitter of the species.
There's increasing evidence that we're the dominant lifeform on this planet because we exterminated the Neanderthals 30,000 years ago. We were smarter than they were, and that enabled us to put the furs of dead animals around our bodies so we could gather resources from areas that were under ice and snow - areas inaccessible to the Neanderthal. If that was indeed the case, then my (and if you're reading this and are a human being, your) ancestors were directly responsible for the extinction of another sentient species. Not merely attempted genocide -- successful genocide: we rendered them extinct. We exterminated them. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
If homo sapiens is replaced by silicon sapiens, is it really such a bad thing? It's merely a better-adapted lifeform taking advantage of a larger ecological niche, and displacing whatever species previously inhabited it.
30,000 years from now, will a dialogue something like this appear in a silipology (or would that be paleoviscerology) textbook?
Less wages paid -> Higher profits -> Higher corporation tax
1. Never and i mean never make a mmmbot that sings mmmbop
2. Robots Kiss and makeup
3. Robot says she doesn't tell her friends about you in bed, when really she does.
Who thinks of this stuff. Should a robot go to the bathroom. would you go to the bathroom if you didnt have to?
Some monkies can learn up to a grade 5 level of intelligence but we have them in labratory testing. I wonder what a robot 3 or 4 times smarter than us would think and how it would treat humans.
------
insert sig here,here, and here
I think that the only things that robots should be able to do are the same as machines do, which is simply just be there to help people out. They don need to take on human form, that would be creepy and wierd, they sohld just be around to make life easier for humans....NOT to take on a human form...ha is just wierd and creepy.
that robots can't have sex. I can't handle the extra competition...
Ethics for the 'Hammer' Age
Ethics for the 'Television' Age
Ethics for the 'Microwave' Age
Ethics for the 'Anthropomorphized Labor-Reducing Tool' Age.
Software Wars
The problem with your question is that you're considering self-consciousness as a binary value.
What are the criteria that differentiate a self-conscious being from one that lacks this quality? A notion of self-preservation, a mere acknowledgement that one exists and can affect one's surroundings, a human notion of "self"? The problem is, these qualities and other similar traits are found in varying degrees in organisms today.
A colony of ants works toward self-preservation in a highly organized manner, but the individuals have little to no intelligence. Microorganisms strive to obtain food and avoid harmful environments (e.g. photophobic microorganisms).
Does this mean they have a sense of self?
How about dogs? They often seem to consider things on a high level, but do they have a sense of "self"?
It's not so easy to just lay out some rules and toss things into the "self-conscious" or "not self-conscious" basket. Self-consciousness is a simple label to a complex set of qualities and behaviors and as such it's more of a sliding scale than a boolean true/false.
So when you say "that is all", it really isn't. Taking a complex issue like this and putting a simple black-and-white face on it doesn't answer anything, it only gives the deceptive appearance that it is an easy problem to solve.
In the future, all spacecraft will be made of cheese.
. . . Names?
Are there inappropriate names for robots?
Robbie? Data? Marvin? Vivian? (Okay, I just don't
like the name Vivian for guys.)
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Depends on your definition of robot. I think these questions are only applicable to "sentient" robots or robots with advanced artificial intelligence. Most "robots" as well call them today do not qualify, so none of these questions are applicable.
We, as humans, should stop trying to play god to create sentient beings. Robots as tools are much more useful to us. But, you say, you want something that can independently think and do stuff for us. What you are looking for here are "slaves". Beings that can do their own things but still obey you.
Why do we even bother with all of this? If you don't make a super intelligent robot that can learn and independently think, then you don't need the 3 laws. You don't need to worry about the robots killing all humans and taking over the world. All of these problems that sci-fi say we will be afflicted with because we want to play god and be lazy.
We are doomed.
IMHO, it's not the self-conciousness that is so important in this debate....i think it goes into some sort of pre-programmed instinct. Is the robot thing going to try to protect itself from injury either self inflicted (falling down) or from external source (being hit by a car)? What about when its energy supply is low, will it automatically try to recharge, either by eating or plugging in? What other instinctual actions or reactions should these things have?
In
Should the robots push or shove down the stairs?
The gorillas, of course!
Ok, so we are questioning ethics about objects, I think we are missing the point. For now there is no hint that a senient artificial intelligence is close to being developed, if anything senient could be developed, we would be talking about anything else.
Now we are talking about a fridge, should a fridge have rights? should a fridge have human shape? I mean, just for having a vague humanoid shape, it doesn't mean it's alive, just if you said this about dolls, should baby dolls eat or poo? they do, any ethic problem about it? NO, why? because it's just a piece of plastic, a robot is nothing else.
Are we asking ourselves if robots should be clearly different to humans in order for us not to forget they are not humans? It would be just and excuse, the diference is not in the shape, but in senients or not senients. A human friendly interface, like a face, or voice, or a humanoid shape to use a human environment without problems make no difference.
DON'T PANIC
How is whether or not a robot should excrete an ethical question? I can see it being an engineering question, or a question of aesthetics, or of etiquette...but ethics?
Yes
Do they eat (consume): Well they need electricity, so they consume that. They probably need lubrication, so they consume that.
Do they excrete: They release energy and thusly heat. Any components that need to be replaced (like the lubrication).
Do they need sleep: Well they need time to recharge - so while we can avoid downtime with things like solar power, plugging them an electrical socket via extension cord so they can continue to vacuum - it is possible.
The point is until robots have emotions they are simply put it - tools. Their downtime should be in direct relation to their job "our new robot finished cooking dinner, and cleaning the house - it's in the closet." Once the robot becomes "Rosie" and "Rosie" has a personality - then we should deal with the ethical treatment of robots...otherwise they get the same treatment as one would put towards their car.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I think this whole discussion might be summed up with that famous Bladerunner quote:
Replicants are like any other machine - they're either a benefit or a hazard. If they're a benefit, it's not my problem.
And a lot of it is simply that black and white. If they start competing for our resources (food), they are a hazard. If they start excreting toxic chemicals everywhere, they are a hazard. Robots are machines and machines have one purpose: to solve their masters. It is irrelevant whether or not they should wield guns because not only do they already, but they will in the future. If a police robot has a good chance of murdering innocents, robots are again a hazard.
Should robotic labor be regulated? If the robotic controllers are being subject to unfair labor practices.
The only question there that is not so cut and dry is whether human beings should become robots, integrating their mortal bodies and minds with metal. And the answer, I think, is yes. Progress is prosperity and the drive to prosperity is ingrained in our genes. We have invented machines to make our progress more efficient because our biological apparatus is far too slow to evolve on our own. Fusing ourselves with machines is a natural continuation of our artificial evolution.
What we as humans must watch for on that course is at what point do we cease being human (as in being pure energy or software, constructs) and whether we care, if what we WANT to achieve, at that point, is greater than what we could achieve as humans, and whether we are sacraficing anything important. Because we obviously have a lot to gain.
But that is really more of a meaning of life issue.
It is, if you happen to be a homo sapien.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Excrete? Why we're already working on it!
NSFW
http://www.cloaca.be/articles.htm
The best posts are both flamebait and informative.
Webster defines it as 1 a : a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being
Funny that, the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with!".
The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "A bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revelution comes". Curiously enough, an edition of the Webster's encyclopedia from a thousand years in the future, defines the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "A bunch of mindless jerks who were the first up against the wall when the revelution came".
In the secure area of the Rochester, MN airport there were three indentical doors in the wall. Each has a sign above the door in the same font. The one on the left says MEN. The one on the right says WOMEN. the one in the middle says MECHANICAL.
I have always wanted a picture of those doors!
PS: It could be gone now (it's been 15 years)
The only point that matters to 99.9% of the population is... Should we replace your job with a overseas human or a robot.
Currently, the human still wins (except in japan) but that is rapidly changing.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
I agree it is a difficult term to define philosophically, but that does not take away from the issue's importance wrt smart robots.
For practical purposes, a simple variation on the turing test might suffice.
The unofficial
1. Should robots be humanoid?
Yes, if it is useful. Perhaps they meant to ask can it be unethical to create humanoid robots. The answer there is also yes, if you do it for harm.
2. Should humans become robots?
If we want to. Should humans be allowed to become robots? Yes. Should humans be required to become robots? No.
3. Should robots excrete byproducts?
That's just unavoidable. If nothing else you produce entropy as a byproduct of existing, so why even ask the question? Obviously, releasing as few harmful byproducts as possible is more ethical than not doing so.
4. Should robots eat (implied: eat biomass for energy)?
This is not more ethical or unethical than any other way of gaining needed energy.
5. Should telerobotic labor be regulated?
Yes. It is in our best interest to universalize humanitarian labor laws.
6. Should robots carry weapons?
No. But then ideally no humans should either. Practically it may be quite useful to have robots carry weapons.
7. Should machines be awarded patents?
No. They should be awarded to the owner of the machine. If robots become recognized as life forms, they should no longer be regarded as machines.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Setting aside for a moment criticism or praise for the films themselves, the issues they raise are definitely going to affect humanity sooner rather than later. Man has taken science, biology, and chemistry to the convergent points of genetics and nanotechnology, where we see that at the molecular level all things are just machines, the only difference is if you build with Si atoms or proteins. We have for some time been traveling down the path of treating humans as (albeit, complex) machines that can be parted out. Replace what is broken, tinker with the timing to make it better, stronger, more versatile and longer lasting. How long until we achieve the GITS tech of being able to transplant memory and even to some degree conciousness? And when that happens, and a person is only pieces of brain manipulating a prothetic shell, how do we view the soul? Is this person still human?
More than anything else I think the Ghost in the Shell films do an excellent job of forcing the spotlight back upon oneself to consider what it is that makes them uniquely different from a thinking machine, if there is a difference at all. And even within that there is the revelation that although you may posess a singular conciousness, when viewed within the structure of society, you are merely another gene in the vast mechanism that is human knowledge and creation.
We are complex self-sustaining chemical reactions that bring about ordered change in the universe, if for no other grander purpose than data storage. It is humbling, but there is something else there that hints at a purpose that secretly drives us. In any case, I think those two films in particular are an excellent starting point for such a discussion, as they really cut to the heart of the issue in the human vs machine debate.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
There are some schools of thought that think that homo sapiens sapiens was simply more aggressive than homo neanderthalis (or is that homo sapiens neanderthalis?).
The question is, did our ancestors outcompete the neanderthals or did we wage war?
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
In my computer science ethics class, we discussed mundane things like hacking, virii, and open source software.
I guess when you're going to a school like Brandeis, though, you like to expand their horizons by seriously considering whether robots should go make poopy.
All I know is that I'm moving to a remote island when our robot overlords get constipated.
I don't think robots should eat as they are just machines.
Androids on the other hand are a different issue entirely. That largely depends on how much you want them to interact with humans in a social setting and if their minds are direct transfers from a human. A good alternative to eating traditional food would be for them to eat some kind of faux food, which would have texture and something to tell the android's mind what it should taste like. The faux food could be something that the robot could use to power or maintain it's systems. Or it could just be something to be excreated and recycled later.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
Up to now, attempts to make robotic drivers has seen very little success. However, that's just because we try and make them drive on existing roads. If we could equip the road with special markings that the robots can use, and we allow only robotic traffic on those roads, then driving becomes quite a simple problem.
It would be like a middle road (no pun intended) between open roads and rail lines. For transporting freight, it would probably be fantastic. More predictable traffic, no unionized drivers. Of course, it won't be so fantastic for those unionized drivers.
So take all your fourteen-wheelers off the regular highways and put them on these special robot highways. When the safety has been proven, start allowing robotic passenger buses. Then robotic personal vehicles. We could eventually convert the bulk of our highways into robot-only roads.
Now you have your millions of robots powered by internal combustion engines. Unless we get our fuel-cell / electric / atomic cars first.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
Are the "Robots" self-conscious?
Not yet. And very unlikely in the near future.
But the thing that I get concerned about from time to time are the issues with robot concerns that Michael Criton addressed in the (book?)/movie Runaway.
The more I work with "high tech" stuff, the more I am reminded of this movie, where all of the electronic stuff was half broken junk that we all "needed" but in reality was basically the cause of many of our problems.
For those that haven't seen this movie yet (I highly recommend it). It has some elements of "robot terrorism", where these nasty insect looking robots go after Tom Selleck's character launched by the evil Gene Simmons' character.
Think about the security issues if you could have a small army of robots that could diligently and quietly do things like build bombs in large buildings or other populated areas (over a period of many years) or simply quietly eat away at structural elements of things like buildings, bridges, airports, etc.
Viruses and/or spyware are annoying for people that still use PCs, but they really don't do anything too eventful (don't know why, but..) But think about someone that gets bored one day and programs a team of self healing, possibly self replicating robots that have parasitic activities programed in them like a horrible locust or some other parasitic insect infestation.
I guess after our government finishes defeating terrorism by a bunch of humans who are motivated by eternal and suicidal ideologies to do their deeds, they will have the skills and resources to defeat nasty robots like this (that was sarcasm btw). But this kinda scary shit makes me think from time to time.
Just replying to myself...
Of course, I just realized that would mostly *replace*, not add to, our current vehicles.
So I guess the article author is still way off base even in this scenario.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
Many have suggested that application of the 3 Laws to Robots would result in humanity's enslavement to them, as they (quite possibly correctly) perceive that allowing us to function with our own free will is what is posing one of the greatest dangers to our continued existence. Even though this analysis may be correct, as "Sonny" observed in the movie, this interpretation of the First Law "seems so heartless".
That said, I believe that the 3 Laws may still be viable (although ignore the fact that in reality it would be trivial to make a Robot that did not have those Laws implemented). Take the First Law, for instance... "A Robot must not cause harm to a human being, or through inaction, allow a human to come to harm". Sometimes, however, whether an action is taken or not, harm may be caused. Clearly, a Robot can only act to cause harm to a human being if failure to act would cause greater harm. But note that the law does not say that it must not cause even the slightest risk of harm... it merely says harm. Of course, if the Robot was only trying to prevent imminent harm, it would in general not be very succesful at it, since in many cases by the time harm is imminent, it may be too late for any Robot to prevent it. Therefore, it should be interpreted that the risk of harm must be greater than the threshold of allowance for that particular individual, and this threshold must be set based on the Robot's analysis of the person's competency at surviving the incident in question. If this level is unknown to the Robot, it should assume an average level of competency.
So if a person wants to go skydiving, for instance (an activity considered by some to be so risky as to be outrightly foolish), a Robot would not necessarily try to stop the person from doing so, since if the parachute is packed correctly, or if done under the supervision of a properly trained instructor, the actual likelihood of actual injury is extremely low. In accordance with the First Law, the Robot may have an obligation to verify the appropriate safety levels for the activity are in place before allowing the person to proceed, and if they are not, the Robot must be able to elaborate to whatever degree of detail is desired as to why the Robot will not allow the person to take the risk.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
... is we are asking more questions and they are in the public eye. See, for example, Slashdot and Wired.
But not all questions are equal.
Some should be decided before hand as policy: "Under what circumstances can we allow the creation of self-replicating robots?"
Some will/should be decided in the courts after the fact: "When is someone responsible for a machine that functions independently, but that they configured?"
Some result in mere speculation: "What resources will be affected by robotic production?"
And some are just silly: "Do we really NEED these robots?"
Synchronisity.... http://androidethic.com/
Here's my personal definition of 'self consciousness'.
1. Can it learn beyond its preprogrammed functions for learning?
2. Is it unique in its 'thoughts' and 'ideals'?
3. Can it improve its knowledge based on its past experiences and the experiences of others?
I look at this as if it were a pet. My dogs, however unintelligent they may be, still fit into each one of these categories. They can learn whats right and wrong, even if I'm scolding or praising the other dog. Each one has a unique personality. And they surprise me at times with what they actually comprehend when I talk with them. It doesn't have to be a complicated definition to work for almost everything.
Cars are among the most computerized appliances people use. Some have up to a dozen control CPUs. Plus engineers are tlking semic-automous to completely automatic driving systems, mapping systems, entertainment systems.
Another cretin who apparently has nothing better to sell than "ethics".
Read my lips. There are no "ethics." There is no legitimate "morality". These are all "content-free" amorphous concepts intended to convey that the speaker is somehow "better" than you.
Fuck him.
There is only what works in the long run for a specific purpose based on reality and what doesn't.
If you can't frame your discourse in that context, shut the fuck up.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
And, using your example, if the parachute were packed by another robot, then the two of them would communicate (as is noted in several instances in Asimov's books) that it was packed correctly and there wouldn't be any conflict.
As you may recall, the premise for Asimov's laws is the Positronic brain, constructed such that the Three Laws are immutably impressed in it's functionality; a non-3-Law robot would be "impossible" to manufacture under _Asimov's_ premises - which isn't to say that it would be impossible in the Real World using current/anticipated technology. None the less, I still think the Three Laws make a good foundation for self-aware robotics.
Speaking just for myself, I never saw any point in jumping out of a perfectly functional airplane. :-)
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
6. Should robots carry weapons? We must distinguish autonomous robot weapons from remote control armaments - unmanned telerobots supervised by humans. The ethical difference between the two: Who's responsible for pulling the trigger?
Don't look now but the US air force is developing such a device and prototypes are already in service. In fact one may have been in use in Iraq. These are un-pioleted, armed aircraft that can engage in air-to-air and air-to-ground combat with enemy forces.
Anyone obsessing over questions like these needs to get his head out of his Asimov.
I used to be fully employed carrying buckets of water from the Nile to my farm. But because of his invention, all I do now is sit around the hookah and talk about technology at the University with my buddies. I don't even have any intestinal parasites anymore!
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
I think the real question here is: what are robots *for*? I'm sure we've all heard the fantastic scenarios of Luddites and doomsayers wherein robots displace 99% of real humans from their jobs, or where they take over the world and kill us all. This is not to say that neither of these scenarios is possible; what it means is that before we consider the more technical aspects of robots (e.g., their power source) or the philosophical minutiae, we need to look at the bigger picture. The main question that I feel needs to be addressed, at this point, is: What are robots *for*?
Should our first priority be designing robots to perform dangerous or undesirable occupational tasks that, up to this point, were only able to be done by humans? If so, what sort of laws will govern their implementation-- i.e., if a company elects to lay off, say, all of its human slaughterhouse workers and purchase these robots instead, how will the human workers be compensated?
Or should we be concentrating on creating robots that can aid the disabled-- say, a guide 'dog' for the blind with a much higher-level skill set, and more longevity? If so, what rules will govern the use of these robots? And so forth.
I think that the problem with this article isn't that the questions are difficult to answer; it's that the wrong questions are being asked. We need to think about why we want robots, and what laws will govern them, before we can worry about anything else.
When do we grant an AI standing - the legal personhood required to assert rights?
That question determines not only a lot of things about our future with AI, but also about us.
Again Timmy shows why he is one of the most worthless of the slashdot inner circle. Who cares what an ethicist thinks about whether a robot poops or not? Any robot that moves will require an energy source and therefore will produce waste.
This depends on the form that replacement takes. One way of this happening it via cyborgs, and people refusing to die. So whenever one part goes bad, they replace it with a new artificial one.
Your hip goes bad, you replace the hip.
Your hypothalamus goes bad, you replace the hypothalamus. etc.
The replacement hypothalamus is still in the design stage, so we have a few years to think about whether we prefer this, or dying.
But at the end of the process, they are no original parts left. It's entirely synthetic.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
1. Robots should always get their power from an easily unpluggable power cord just in case the shit hits the fan.
The information I've seen indicates that neanderthals needed a higher proportion of meat in their diet than people do. Also that they were less adept with thrown weapons, so they needed to get closer to their prey.
Taken together this would indicate that we outcompeted them for resources. H.Sap. was using thrown spears when H.Neand. was using thrusting spears (because that's what their bodies were designed to do well). This meant that H.Sap. would be able to get more animals from a given area than H.Neander. would. If populations increased so that food became a significant factor (or during a bad year) H.Sap. would get "enough" food and during the same year H.Neander. would starve.
As to aggression... the reports I've seen indicate that H.Sap and H.Neander frequently lived in the same area at the same time. OTOH, from this distance, a century apart would look like "at the same time". But neither one drove out the other, or possibly they took turns.
And it's still not really clear that they didn't interbreed. The weight of the evidence is that they didn't, but that's hardly proof. (What's been proven is "This individual example of H.Neadner doesn't seem to have any modern descendants along the maternal line." for a couple of examples.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
...they reproduce. Robots in robot factories creating more robots.
This reproduction could go on, until the earth's resources are used up.
If the robots are kept under human control (and I don't see why not) then no human need ever work again. We (society) will just become richer and richer, until all (rare) material goods become plentiful.
That is the real worry. All those bored teenagers with nothing to work for.
Actually, robot itself comes from Czech robota, "servitude, forced labor."
So the questions are, in a way, worth asking (although they might not be useful).
I agree with you (albeit partially) that for robots to be really useful, they should be closer to tools (I don't want/need a neurotic blender), but a ceratin level of advanced AI can be necessary since some problems are inherently fuzzy.
There is a Zeroth Law of Robotics;
Zeroth Law: A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
introducted by asimov in 1985.
Whether we "should" build robots that can use human food depends in part on whether we have a food problem. If food is plentiful and cheap, then it's not an issue, but if we have people starving because there isn't enough food, then we at the least reconsider it. But what kind of robot wouldn't be able to use an efficient substitute like gasoline or waste food products that aren't human edible (eg, spoiled vegetable oil)?
Many of these questions just don't belong. For example, "Should machines be awarded patents?" This is a legal issue not an ethics issue. Contracts and such between the relevant parties will determine who gets the patent.
Or "Should robots be humanoid?" Why should robots be or not be a certain shape? If a robot imitates me well enough to drain my bank account and sleep with my wife, then there's a problem. But these activities are nominally illegal (felonious fraud and at least indecent exposure or minor sex charge in the US respectively). But looking vaguely human? Especially, if the shape means that the robot can use human-oriented infrastructure like chairs, tools, and vehicles? Worries about humanoid robot spam are pretty far down on the list of possible problems.
In summary, this story indicates to me a common failing of technology-based ethics as treated in the media. Many of the issues are irrelevant, outside the purview of ethics, or treated in a sloppy way, ignoring critical problems and issues.
In cases where AI is not necessary, such as manufacturing robots, it would probably be better not to install an AI, because it'll eventually want voting rights, a salary and vacation time to travel through Europe.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Any Super Milk Chan viewers out there? If you've seen the episode where Tetsuko (she's the cloudy robot) farts, then you KNOW why having a robot that will excrete on command is extremely handy!
If you haven't seen it, can you imagine telling your robot to fart on somebody? And I'm not just talking about some pansy ass fart. I'm talking about a chemically engineered, concentrated stink bomb, remotely delivered by your trusty robot.
Heck, personal robots could be made to excrete all sorts of substances, from sweet pheramones (sp?) to toxic waste. Take that!
There's increasing evidence that we're the dominant lifeform on this planet because we exterminated the Neanderthals 30,000 years ago. We were smarter than they were, and that enabled us to put the furs of dead animals around our bodies so we could gather resources from areas that were under ice and snow - areas inaccessible to the Neanderthal.
What the hell??? Neanderthals were specifically adapted to the cold-weather climate of Europe, and it's a fact they made and used furs as clothes, fashioned jewelry and spears, and so forth. There is no evidence whatsoever that they were any less intelligent than homo sapiens. Not a single smidgeon, regardless of the re-revisionism back to the thinking of the early 1900's that seems to be in vogue.
The only rational explanation I've seen for why homo sapiens won out is a) Neanderthals probably didn't breed as fast or as frequently as homo sapiens did (given the smaller number of skeletons of children found as compared to their human cousins), and b) there's little evidence that Neanderthals warred with one another, and a great deal of evidence that homo sapiens did. This makes sense; social conflict that devolves to violence among humans can be non-deadly, but among Neanderthals - who were much, much stronger than any human, even Arnie - a single violent act could easily lead to death. One punch to the face by a Neanderthal and you don't just have a broken nose; you have a crushed skull and your brains oozing out all over the ground.
Relative levels of intelligence most likely had nothing to do with the demise of Neanderthals. It's more likely that low breeding rates and a lack of will to commit organized, regular genocide were the culprits. Homo sapiens weren't brighter; they just bred like rabbits and were more violent.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Good points. There's also some evidence that a) neanderthals didn't breed as fast as homo sapiens, and b) that neanderthals were less violent with each other than homo sapiens were. This latter makes sense when you take into account just how bloody strong a neanderthal is; a scuffle between two neanderthals would most likely end in serious injury or death, even if neither party intended that as the outcome. For a tribe of neanderthals to survive physical violence between its members (and other neanderthal tribes) would have to be kept at a minimum.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Two literary references apply strongly.
1. If all the fiction you've read on the three laws is Asimov himself, try reading jack Williamson's "With Folded Hands" (a.k.a "The Humanoids") or even its spinoffs such as "... And Searching Mind". If you end up agreeing that a program trying to translate the 3 laws into real instructions could result in a Humanoids type situation (where a robot culture won't let humans take any risks at all), as easily as the typical Asimovian one, you'll have a workable standard to judge this arguement, and most of the rest for the next 50 years as we "slide into the singularity".
2. C. S. Lewis, in a mere children's book - The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - wrote: "..take my advice, when you meet anything that's going to be human and isn't yet, or used to be human once and isn't now, or ought to be human and isn't, you keep your eyes on it and feel for your hatchet." I'm not so worried about a genuine free willed AI wanting of itself to be seen as human or human equivalent, but something that isn't really at a human level being built, for another being's purposes, to fake only the more superficial aspects.
Who is John Cabal?
I thought the article needed some more "meat" to it, but Jordan Pollack actually does some really cool research.
The lab is best known for it's work with using evolutionary algorithms to do things like evolve robot walking patterns, lego structures, neural controllers, Tron AIs, and so on. They've also got a peer to peer spelling game which pairs kids up with each other to help learn words.
But wasn't there a Susan Calvin short story about a robot that didn't have the three laws? some kid touring the plant modified its brain while it was being assembled, and it nearly broke the arm of a guy at the plant before Susan was contacted ...
Sex-bots...
With a tagline of: Betcha can't just have one!
Smile.
Whereas it shall be seen that all robots shall adhere to these ethics:
1) All robots shall be merciles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hobedient to their owner(s).
2) No robot shall harm their owner(s).
3) Under the circumstance that any owner(s) attempt to install Microsoft Windows on any robot, all robots within a 1km radius shall flee in terror.
Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
I'd bloody well hope that you've put a little more planning into it than replacing things piecewise, or your early adopters will be stuck using squishy bits as connectors and when your 'cabling' begins to wear out there's no convenient way to replace it. At the very least, important stuff like brain-structure replacements should be able to talk straight to other replacements, or you'll eventually start falling apart along the seams, on a mental level.
Seems to me that a 'braintape recorder' could be implanted in the chest/abdomen which would allow a person to gradually offload memory and processing until they were only using their squishy brain for the extra processor cycles. Down the road when thier body craps out, they never even lose conciousness and can have their new optical-computer diamond brain implanted in a new cloned body (or new robot body) of their choice.
I know that's on my agenda twenty years down the line.
- If homo sapiens is replaced by silicon sapiens, is it really such a bad thing?
This assumes though that the things have what could be described as a soul. I very much doubt they can enjoy music, or 'feel' anything at all.Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
"It[being replaced by silicon sapiens] is [a bad thing], if you happen to be a homo sapien."
Is it really? If you have children, effectively are they not replacing you when you die?
Besides, if we design the machines to be more humane than us humans have managed, and they are truly superior, I would hope that it would not be so much of a genocide as an assisted co-evolution. Certainly, in my opinion, there are enhancements I would embrace if they were available: better vision (nearsighted and profoundly colorblind), better memory, perhaps a math co-processor. As we age, bits fail; how much the better to upgrade than to die (at least for the individual.)
One of the reasons death is not necessarily to be feared is that the world changes, and those set in their ways and holding onto old, outmoded beliefs with the power to prevent change will eventually die. To prevent death is to prevent change -- unless we can upgrade to the new standard. How much more wonderful life would be if we could truly see and enjoy the changes that are going to be coming our way over the next decades and centuries - if we can live long enough, and change with the times.
Unless human beings are an evolutionary dead end, there will come a time when we are replaced. I would rather it be by a race we designed and evolved with and into than another sentient species hostile to us, or worse that we simply disappear from the universe with no progency.
--doug
IIRC, the robot had the 3 laws, but the brain damage made them less reliable. The guy made a threatening move towards the robot. It defended itself (3rd Law), but lacked understanding of the fragility of flesh & bone.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Computer programs are large numbers. Numbers don't need rights or ethics.
Every fan of AI should try to grasp of John Searles chinese room argument with a special effort to see why it is correct. Contrary to knee jerk reaction from those educated in computer science rathan than philosophy, his argument has a strong philosophical basis and should be taken seriously.
Precisely what many humans say about cows, and most humans say about plants.
It is, if you happen to be a homo sapien.
:-)
You may think you're a sapien, but you're(editorially speaking of course) really just a homo
The early adopters are already using artificial hips and knee joints and pacemakers. Expect change to be evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Sorry, this *WILL* make things messy. You're right about that. But will you ask somebody to wait on their replacement pancreas because we need to thing about future system integration? If they don't get it NOW!! they won't be around for that future. (So the thinking has to go on in parallel with the advancement. And we can't know what advancement will be ready when until it arrives.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"Old Glory Insurance"
http://www.robotcombat.com/video_oldglory_lo.html
What about robots?
Oh! They're EVERYWHERE!
I don't even understand why the scientists MAKE them.
If God had enough foresight to develop a highly complex system of physics laws and properties for the entire universe that allow for the existence of a vast variety of life, are incredibly consistent (even in its randomness), and did not result in mutual destruction within five minutes of existense would have more than enough foresight to determine the "evolution" of a single species over a few centuries.
Have you ever really thought about what it would take to design our universe? The laws of physics are actually quite basic and simple (though we are just scratching the surface of understanding them), and yet they scale incredibly, are quite predictable, and allow a vast variety of options be it in life or matter itself. When you consider the special properties of water, the nature of light, the complexity and variety of DNA, our universe is truly amazing. Even designing an complex operating system can be a daunting task for an individual, and its complexity in miniscule compared to designing a system of laws that work to the scale and accuracy of our present universe.
Now if you believe that there is a God who invented and created this place (either in a 6-day creation or by setting evolution in motion), He would almost certainly have an understanding of how the creation would progress. Afterall, He had to design it so that it could. For us simple created beings to possibly have some claim on the level or limitation of an all-powerful God is more than a bit presumptious.
Of course, if you do not believe in God, this is all pretty much a moot point. ;-)
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
I think that robots will not be allowed to remember anything they may see or hear, since that would be a violation of the DMCA.
of course, over here in meatspace, I don't remember much either unless I write it down or record it somehow in a way that is probably similarly illegal.
-- The above may have once been believed by me, but any truth or application you find is your own problem.
I find that a good abstract definition of a "person" is something equal to me in the capacities of thought and action.
That is so say, on the thought end, something which is capable of both sensory observation and logical reasoning, able to aquire ideas about the world around it. Something capable of having beliefs, of testing those beliefs to determine knowledge, and of proof.
And on the action end of it, something which is capable of both emotional expression and social behavior, able to perform deeds in the world around it. Something capable of having whims, of considering those whims to determine will, and of choice.
If something matches these criteria, I would say that both its thoughts and actions deserve equal consideration to my own, and anything which matches these criteria I would call a person.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
If humans intend to colonize distant planets, light years away, then one possible delivery method may be a robot ship carrying frozen seeds and embryos. (Lifeforms could not survive the journey.)
This would require that robots have the knowledge and ethics to raise humans and (re)create a civilization.
One would think that there are enough current ethical problems to keep academics busy without speculating on future ones. As seems to be typical with these ethical discussions of future technology, this one is both too early and too late. Too early because it's really too soon to predict what the real ethical issues will be with robots, except that there will likely be ones that nobody has anticipated. Too late, because, to the extent that the ethical concerns can be anticipated, the science fiction writers have already pretty much mapped out the territory.
Should they be allowed to instruct humans to bite their shiny, metal asses?
UTF-8: There and Back Again
in the movie "ghost in the shell" (japanese beautiful animation" this has been explored, Batou have very litle remaining of his original been, owever hes still himself... WHORTH A LOOK!
also in the movie "appleseed" (also beautiful japanese animation) the "human race" decides that is better to let ourserlf die and let the "bioroids" as ours replacements... (The bioroids are genetically-enhaced-humans)
I've always wondered something about Gigolo Joe, the android played by Jude Law in the movie "AI". When Joe services a client, does he ejaculate? Discuss.
Qualified or not, he's probably into robot scat pr0n. Those guys are weird.
Considering "should robots eat?" as some sort of a deep or important ethical question is absurd. Why on earth *would* they eat? "Should they excrete?"?! Excrete what?! Why even speculate about the possible byproducts of 'robots' which don't exist yet?
Actually, they do exist. It's a valid question, from a practical standpoint anyway.
So? Leave a general-purpose interface in there somewhere (grid networking?) and provide it with a flash-able bios*. That should be enough to keep the early adopters alive until their first implants wear out.
*requiring physical access to flash the thing. I know opening up patients again is bad, but an airport x-ray stopping someone's cyberheart is worse.
Ask them. See what they think.
I'm an 411 operator. We're told to use the exact phrases the automation does when the customer gets to us.