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.
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
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
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
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.
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?