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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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*
4. If possible, robot must appear sexy and chrome. 5. Robots must speak as either emotionless females or British butlers. 6. In the event that a photogenic protagonist acquires a job at a government agency, one of the robots must go crazy. Then only the protagonist will see the threat, then all the robots will go crazy. 7. Once crazy, robots will destroy large amounts of property using skills far beyond what they would have ever required to do the tasks they were designed for. 8. If it can't charge my cell phone it ain't getting made.
Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
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?
That's fine and dandy, but what about following laws of a country, state or other moral guidelines that most humans find to be acceptable. If I tell a robot to grow pot for me and then program him to lie to the law about who gave him the orders, should that be in their code? What about illegal search and seasures and robot instruction data et cetera? Should robots be programmed to give any information required to the proper authorities. Should they be able to recognize warants et cetera. I've got to assume there is some book by Stanislaw Lem that covers something like this, but I haven't read it yet. Still working ont he Futurological Congress.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
. . . 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
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
At best these questions are ones of economics. The ethical questions start when the robots begin requesting/demading rights as living beings. If your Roomba wants to leave your house to pursue a career as a Segway (or to clean another person's home), are you ethically/morally obligated to let It?
Please turn in your geek card and report for remedial South Park training.
...
Kyle's mom is a big fat ugly bitch, but Cartman's mom is a dirty slut with a scheisse fetish
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
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.
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"
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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
If the robots were programmed to, they could. Or at a minimum, you have to admit, they can be programmed to look like they make ethical decisions. You can't do that with a hammer. A hammer does not sense its environment and make any sort of decisions on it, no matter how rudimentary.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
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?
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.