Slashdot Mirror
The Question of Robot Safety
An anonymous reader writes to mention an Economist article wondering how safe should robots be? From the article: "In 1981 Kenji Urada, a 37-year-old Japanese factory worker, climbed over a safety fence at a Kawasaki plant to carry out some maintenance work on a robot. In his haste, he failed to switch the robot off properly. Unable to sense him, the robot's powerful hydraulic arm kept on working and accidentally pushed the engineer into a grinding machine. His death made Urada the first recorded victim to die at the hands of a robot. This gruesome industrial accident would not have happened in a world in which robot behavior was governed by the Three Laws of Robotics drawn up by Isaac Asimov, a science-fiction writer." The article goes on to explore the ethics behind robot soldiers, the liability issues of cleaning droids, and the moral problems posed by sexbots.
The story curiously doesn't dwell much on virtual bots and issues posed by them. It focuses entirely on mechanical bots.
"This gruesome industrial accident would not have happened in a world in which robot behavior was governed by the Three Laws of Robotics drawn up by Isaac Asimov, a science-fiction writer"
Neither would this have happened if the maintenance tech had followed procedure and just switched the damned thing off. I don't see how this is any different from a normal industrial accident with something like a sheet metal press.The evil monkey commands you to dance.
The robot didn't actively kill him; it just wasn't programmed to know whether a person is there or not. It's like stepping into a giant blender without turning it off. There's isn't much morality to worry about.
Whenever robots come out, why do people trot out Asimov's Laws of Robotics like they're holy writ? He created those laws and then wrote a book's worth of short stories (read: FICTION) showing their pitfalls.
For anyone who thinks they're a great idea, I'd also like to see your working prototype code and design docs.
This gruesome industrial accident would not have happened in a world in which robot behavior was governed by the Three Laws of Robotics drawn up by Isaac Asimov, a science-fiction writer.
First the robots would have to be able to understand Asimov's laws and have situational awareness in order to follow them.
Even if that was possible today, how much do you think it would cost to implement that in something like an industrial robot performing a single, repetitive task. Perhaps some simply safety sensors would suffice (proximity, resistance, etc.)
Lets all take off our tinfoil hats and leave the basement for a few minutes for some fresh air.
What's the moral issue with sex robots? It would be just another sex toy. Has there ever been a technology some inventive human has not adapted for self-gratification?
I'd venture that it would in fact not even be all that good as a sex toy; it would be limited to being human-like, with human-like capabilities, unlike the classical simple, cheap, but far more versatile toys sold today.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Not the robots fault - the idiot didn't turn it off correctly. The same thing would happen if one was working at a chemical factory on the pipes with out shutting them down first.
The machine that accidentally killed the person is not capable of following the 3 laws of robotics. It was like a train hitting somone on the tracks -- someone in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The three laws require sophisticated sensors and very sophisticated processing, the likes of which I have not seen in any computer yet.
HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
To adhere to Asimov's rules of robotics requires that the robot be capable of executing those instructions, and we're nowhere near having machines with the Artifical Intelligence necessary to do that.
Manufacturing robots are sophisticated, but they're really more properly thought of as "Automatons" in this context, not robots in the Asmovian sense.
Tragic that this fellow died, but no more of a failing than a farmhand who falls into a thresher.
It does suggest that these industrial machines might have more safeties on them than they currently do, though.
The laws are a joke. Robots that kill people are here now, and they're only going to get smarter. The reason is simple; UAVs are nice but they are always vulnerable to ECM jamming attacks, especially at close range against a moderately sophisticated enemy. The way you counter this is by letting the UAV make the final decision to attack or flee.
You tell me which is more likely to happen.. the UAV is never programmed to make that decision to attack, or the military accepts the possibility of some collateral losses.
Hint: Some automated defense systems on ships already make these decisions without human intervention.
..don't panic
So you can get killed by an industrial robot if you don't follow safety procedures. It stands out as a story because of the romanticism over "robots", but there are no shortage of people who get electrocuted because they don't follow lockout tagout, who suffocate because they don't follow confined space entry protocols, who are blinded because they refused to wear goggles, or who lose hands because they refused to let a safety harness slow down their press brake operation.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Robots already have a degree of self awareness. Position sensors, battery charge monitors, etc are all designed to let a robot know about itself in relation to the world. As we develop more sophisticated robots, they will require a greater degree of self awareness. Right now, industrial robots are basically programmed at the "goto position x1,y1,z1; close gripper; goto position x2,y2,z2; release gripper;" level. If you want them to work at the "Pick up part X from conveyor belt; dip part in solvent tank;" level, the robot is going to have to be able to coordinate vision and arm motion. In other words it will have to have a greater degree of self awareness. When you get into higher level stuff (same robot, multiple tasks) the robot will have to keep track of which tool it has, what loads it is capable of manipulating, etc.
In short, the more self aware the robot, the higher the level of abstraction you get in assigning tasks to it.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Rather than venerating pie-in-the-sky sci-fi I'd rather see robots made safer in the same way as normal machines. Add obvious kill switches to anything that is physically capable of causing damage to a human. Put sensors around any intake, just like you would put in an industrial-strength shredder -- you don't have to determine whether its tie or finger or kitty cat thats in your intake, if you're not sure its paper stop shredding. Treat robots, like other machines, as requiring safety within the context of their environment -- which means telling your factory workers "No servicing a robot while its still moving, and we mean it, you'll end up dead", putting up safety fences, and using some form of tethering on anything capable of autonomous movement.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
If that "robot" had been programmed to do no harm to a human it still would have killed him, because it was INCAPABLE of sensing his presence. I rule this to be involuntary (even unnoticed) manslaughter.
You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
You're telling me that you honestly believe that there's been noone that has ever stuck a stick of dynamite up their ass or pussy?
Bullshit. Everyone knows that, no matter how depraved or out there, if you can think up a sexual fetish, there's someone out there who gets off on it.
FC Closer
What use would handguns have then? Other than getting basketballs off the roof and turning off lights? :)
Wow. Suddenly disturbing to think how many handguns are out there, and that the reason behind almost every purchase was "in case I need (want?) to shoot another person."
Wow. Suddenly disturbing to think...that the reason behind almost every purchase was "in case I need (want?) to shoot another person."
So... it took a discussion about biometrics to get you to realize that people might use guns for self-defense or to enforce justice?