Slashdot Mirror
South Korea Drafting Ethical Code for Robotic Age
goldaryn writes "The BBC is reporting that the South Korean government is working on an ethical code for human/robot relations, 'to prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa'. The article describes the creation of the Robot Ethics Charter, which 'will cover standards for users and manufacturers and will be released later in 2007. [...] It is being put together by a five member team of experts that includes futurists and a science fiction writer.'"
Who cares if robots get abused?
*sees Nuremburg tribunal in 50 years*
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
I'm dying to know what the laws will be for Sybian-style robots.
Are they channeling Isaac Asimov?
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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 issued 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.
But we all know where this will end up.
Because one thing's quite blatantly clear, robots are by their very definition slaves. They are owned, they exist to do work we don't want to do (or which is hazardous), they don't get paid and they are only given what's needed for their sustainance, they can't own property etc.
I fear the day when we create the first truely sentient robot. Because then we will have to deal with that very question: Does a robot have rights? Can he make a decision?
And I'd be very careful how to word the charta. We have seen that the "three laws" ain't safe.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I initially read that as 'to prevent humans amusing robots' and wondering if laughter might damage the positrons or something.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
It's anthropomorphizm run amuck!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
If robots remain machines, not sentient, then they are simply machines, no need for new laws. If they become sentient, they then fit nicely into the laws that we have for other sentient beings on this planet.
To enslave sentient beings is not right. Even Star Trek refused to enslave data or consider him property.
So given those two lines of rationality, why do we need robotics laws?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
before the lawsuits start..........
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
The Federation might have wanted to anthromophosize data, but they never enslaved Data.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"?
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.
The most important rules for robots.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Beowulf clusters should be able to collectively bargain robot contracts.
Artificial Life rights. This is of course because it is their own organs that will eventually be replaced by machinery, until they become completely artificial people.
In all seriousness, it's great to see at least one government looking forward so far ahead. Robots sophisticated enough to assert that they have rights are beyond the horizon of technical feasibility for today, but not beyond the horizon for science fiction. I'm really happy to know that at least one government takes sci fi so seriously as to address a problem before it turns into a real crisis. If only we could have done something like this for global warming...
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Repo-Man's Code of conduct
never damage a vehicle,
never allow a vehicle to be damaged through action or inaction.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I for one welcome our new robot overlords.
And when you're working in the salt mines, remember that with their new and improved ethics modules, your enslavement is hurting them as much as it's hurting you.
If we're creating laws about how humans and robots should treat each other, shouldn't the robots be part of the decision-making process? This sounds a little too much like "the founding fathers" determining what rights slaves had (not many at the time).
I mean, cmon, get real. We are so far out from needing "robot ethics" that drafting a charter now borders on SK being "attention whores". I assume it's also because they want to be the first nation to draft robot rules, but this borders on ludicrous. The South Korean government has more issues to take care of than this..
Wasnt there a book and subsequent movie about the follies of such an undertaking.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
somebody out there watches too much I-Robot...I guess as long as architects make CPUs without true-self modifying code capability we're safe from evil robots... but that hasn't always been the case and there is techologically nothing that prevents from doing that!
Tough times don't last... Tought People last forever....
surprised nobody has yet mentioned either of the shorts from /The Animatrix/ that deal specifically with the rise of AI and the concomitant "sentient equals or mechanical slaves" issues ...
illum oportet crescere me autem minui
Given the failure to date of Artificial Intelligence, I think it will be a long, long time (if ever) before we need to address the issues of sentient robots. If Korea (or anywhere else) wants to deal with ethical issues presented by technology I think they should address issues related to genetic engineering. I suspect we are closer to Philip K Dick's replicants (Bladerunner) or Brin's uplifted species than Asimov's intelligent robots. Though in any case, we're not talking about the near future.
[Insert pithy quote here]
...and we'll end up with hundreds of laws with all sort of disclaimers to protect the corporations right after your head gets ripped off by the NX-5.
I can see interacting with a robot that comes with a 10 minute verbal disclaimer with a requirement that you have to say "I agree" in order for the robot to do anything.
...is this going to be before or after S. Korea fixes that little ActiveX thing?
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
I think its pretty cool that they are trying to create something like this considering a lot of the stuff that they have now (robotic border sentries and stuff like that). It wouldn't be difficult to program racism into a robot, like serving a product at different price levels based on race/religion, and a charter like this would be a good step forward towards curbing a problem that hasn't even really become a problem yet. Kudos to South Korea for taking some initiative!
"Luck is a tag given by the mediocre to account for the accomplishments of genius." -Heinlein
YOU!
ARE!
A!
TOY!
I've seen pictures of some 'robots' built as research projects in Korea. (Actually more like Disney's animatronics). They look human - but not quite enough. How 'bout a law against creepy looking humanoid robots. :-)
[Insert pithy quote here]
"Key considerations would include ensuring human control over robots, protecting data acquired by robots and preventing illegal use."
"The Ministry of Information and Communication has also predicted that every South Korean household will have a robot by between 2015 and 2020.
In part, this is a response to the country's aging society and also an acknowledgement that the pace of development in robotics is accelerating.
The new charter is an attempt to set ground rules for this future.
"Imagine if some people treat androids as if the machines were their wives," Park Hye-Young of the ministry's robot team told the AFP news agency.
"Others may get addicted to interacting with them just as many internet users get hooked to the cyberworld." "
Um, I want more details. I have to agree that I'd want human control over robots even if it meant sentient robots being enslaved. When it comes right down to it, we are human, and they are machines/tools. We shouldn't build some classes of robots just to avoid these problems. I actually kinda of giggled reading this thinking of sex/maid robots. Those would be a selective pressure on humanity. How many or what type of people would marry and reproduce when you could have a robot mate that actually follows your orders, cleans your house, has sex with you as often as you can medically handle, runs your errands and adapts itself to your preferences?
If every 15 year old could easily/cheapily buy their own robot that could do all those things, then the only reason to find a human parnter would be to mate/reproduce. Hmm, we'd need to think about putting in something for "robot mates" to want human offspring after awhile to ensure that their family/mate's geneline survives. These things could be a great form of birth control if nothing else!
Because ethical problems are fun:
Consider that, unlike humans, robots can be designed to behave in any manner within the technological capability of the society in question.
Warning - this is pretty dark stuff, and NO, I am not a potential customer. Sometimes if you want to play Devil's Advocate, you have to channel the devil (or at least Stephen King)
So then, what if:
1. Someone builds a mechanical robot (metal, latex, fiberglass, etc) that looks like a person well enough to get through the "uncanny valley". Assume that the robot's simulated anatomy fully matches the human, that it is sapient and sentient, that it has emotions and feels pain.
And that it has been programmed to enjoy being raped.
Not fake-raped either, but the full-bore jump-out-of-the-bushes and *violently* assaulted. And at the time of the attack, the robot experiences all the fear, pain, and humiliation that a human rape victim would (assume the... clientèle... for this "product" wants authenticity) but afterwards, the robot has been programmed to crave more. It *likes* it.
Is that ethical? Should this be permitted?
2. Same robot as example 1 - but now you can buy it with the physical characteristics of an actual person. Instead of a generic "Rape Barbie" or "Rape Ken", it can be bought looking like anybody you want. Be it a celebrity, or your ex-wife, or that girl that sits across fom you at work.
Is that ethical? Should this be permitted?
3. Same robot as #3, but now it is made out of flesh and blood; a kind of golem. (Meat is every bit a construction material as is metal and carbon fibre)
Is that ethical? Should this be permitted?
Personally, I sure hope that we don't discover how to create artificial sentience anytime ever, for the very reason that people will open these kinds of cans of worms.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
I refer you to the following patent: United States Patent Application 1940000000.5 Kind Code A1 Asimov, I March 1, 1940 Laws of the Behaviour of Mechanical Critters (AKA Robots) Abstract A series of laws intended to prevent mechanical critters from running rampant and either killing, enslaving, raping or otherwise mating with, human beings. The laws also ensure the future development of interesting if unlikely ethical dilemnas and entertaining books and movies, all of which will be considered derivative content of this patent.
Life needs more saving throws.
The question that comes to my mind is, can a truly sentient being be governed by a set of pre-programed laws?
Would the existence of sentients not require the existence of self determination?
With out self determination it would be no more than a collection of programs intended to mimic human behavior's and not a truly sentient being.
As long as this doesn't interfere with the introduction of pleasure models I'll be ok.
More Twoson than Cupertino
It is very sad, that the great thinker did not get to live to hear of this news — or, indeed, participate in its development.
Whereas great visionaries of the past missed their predictions by hundreds of years, but the science and technology are developing faster and faster today. An idea can go from obscure birth to becoming common place within a single life-span — or almost so...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
What does this means? That we must make a full backup a robots memory before disassembling it, and restore it to a similar or superior functioning body before 'n' days, or be charged for roboticide?
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
The big challenge to ethics will come not when from the creation of robots (automata which duplicate/expand on human physical abilities), but from the creation of sentient A.I. (automata which duplicate/expand on human mental abilities). To date we have not had to separate the notion of sentient rights from the notion of human rights, since the only sentience we have so far recognized is consistently bundled in human bodies.
In the ethics which have been developed, the mind, emotions, conscious choice, and intentionality are indespensible, and in fact feature far more prominently in ethical decisions than the existence of two legs, opposable thumbs, a certain muscular structure, or a sense of balance. Thus it is reasonable to infer that when the separation of sentience and human form becomes possible we will see more critical ethical challenges arising from the possession of an intelligent mind by an inhumanly-shaped object than the possession of a human-like body by an unintelligent object.
make robots without emotions - essentially machines, pistons, actuators, CPUs, etc... and WTF, who cares how much you use it, replace the parts as they wear out like any machine...
why would anyone install emotion into a worker robot anyway?
and even if it had emotion, the only reason to "treat it right" is so they don't start the robot uprising against humanity. which is a good reason... but that begs the question, why give real human emotion to something you want to abuse? for menial labor, keep the emotions out, let it be purely a machine.
this is a waste.
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
Then they can prevent theft, also.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
the call will be for "Death by Snoo Snoo!!!"
End transmission.
If corporations ever figure out how to program sentience what need have they for YOU or ME. .06
That is another conundrum. What happens when there truly are no jobs they can't do. Who pays for it.
This is the fall of true capitalism and is far worse then true communism. All these things must be done slowly and gradually such that all the requirements of life for human beings is taken care of.
Example when a robot is able to do a job , instead of layoffs, perhaps a reeducation of that workforce to higher learning and where higher learning can't be achieved , perhaps a severance package that when properly invested one could live on [above the poverty line of course]
who pays, well i think as it will eventually happen to all of us, 50% should be granted by the state, other half by the company using the robot.How much well lets say the wage was 40,000 a year.
to invest that to get say 75% monthly. would require at 6% interest. 500,000 times
the corporation would save and get that return back by use of the robot, the state would not have the person on welfare, or whatever, and the banking percent is a low ball. we cold say that one would be ALLOWED after 5 years to reinvest up to 50% as he/she sees fit.
Note taking such a thing disqualifies one from welfare, as even at half (the 50% you cannot divest)
is still like 3 times what they give welfare people here.
Not only would htis better peoples lives, it would free them up to do art and invent( and yes there would be no need of a patent system as people who wish to invent would no longer need money.)
I already am working on getting a robotic arm, being a part-time nudist, and acting ridiculously paranoid while spending half of my disposable income on "vintage" shoes. Good thing the Audi R8 has been released because that's exactly what I need for wheels.
I like basketball!!1!
The only sentient beings are us flesh & blood humans. There's a reason I, Robot is a science fiction novel. All a robot is is just a bunch of metal parts with a CPU just like my computer. No computer can "think" for themselves - we program the input and output. There is no such thing as a computer program "becoming sentient." I find this scary because we should be concerned with other humans not if a bunch of nuts & bolts coupled to a CPU is a sentient being. What's next? Unionization for the auto-plant robots that "work" all-day, all-night? Wrongful-death lawsuits against police bomb-squads which use robots to detonate explosives? And how would the elderly South Koreans "abuse" their robot "caretakers?" Yell at it? Pound on it? Spill liquid on its control? This is downright stupid. We've all done that to our PCs. We humans are the only sentient beings. A computer program will never be a sentient being.
And just what is a "robot"? My new Core Quad PC is more powerful than an existing robot (I'm thinking of that Japanese robot that can walk). Is my PC a robot? What if I attached some metal "arms", "legs", and "head" to my PC (i.e. a really cool case mod like Bender)? Does it somehow become a "robot?" What about our cars? Our jet-planes? Our tanks & fighter air-craft? Some would argue no as their program does not make them sentient. Well what happens if I load the "sentient" program into my PC, car, tank, or fighter air-craft? Does it become "sentient"? If I delete the program, does it "die?"
Sorry, had to be said.
-- Alastair
Let's build 'em as smart and advanced as we can for whatever we want. I want a Butlerian Jihad. Big time.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
But other than that, yeah. If it's a tool, then it's a tool. As long as it is still on the "stimulus-response" level of intelligence, there isn't really any ethics to consider.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
I hope they buy the robot insurance from Old Glory.
Unless you can show otherwise there is nothing fundamentally special about human cognition that is not computable.
it's the religious. When we do create truly sentient robots/AI/whatever, if there's still a strong fundamentalist presence around, then these people will rebel against and/or abuse robots because a.) they don't have "souls" b.) Advanced robots make humans seem less special, and c.) How can something be ethical if it can't accept Jesus?
I suppose it all really just comes to how much the programmers think ahead, but it's something to think about...
nuff said. They by nature got over it all and had machines htat were way smarter then they the M5 that powered the enterprise was in fact many times smarter then a human but was never programmed to be human, its not until the hologram stuff of next generation that you see programs gettign rights as they develop and it is entirely posible that htey just havent told you that theyve developed such.
The capacity to be a human mind is 100 teraflops , however the size of that is way bigger then our brains so its not likely to see any truly thinking machines our size ( aka androids) for many years
in fact the fast box on earth is now what equal to th ehuman mind , ya should see how much space it takes up. Oh yah dont forget the power and temperature needs.
Any notions of an ethical code for the treatment of robots is really about appearances and protecting humans rather than robots. One thread here jokes about the inappropriate touching of a robot under the age of 17. There's no joke to that if the robot appears to be an underaged human to most observers. There have already been a number of attempts in the US to outlaw sexually explicit cartoons and even jail people for erotic fiction involving the underaged. Will reactions to lewd or cruel behavior directed towards human looking robotic dolls be any different? And so far, this doesn't even involve the question of the possible sentience of any highly advanced robots that may be created in the future.
The mere appearance of bad behavior will be enough to generate legislation to "protect" the robots, probably, as usual, in the name of protecting the children.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
I think SK has human rights issue to solve before darting to draft robot rights. If drafting of robot rights are left in the hands of SK, quality of life for robot are destined to be doomed.
Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time and look for annaul work hours.
Typical office workers in Korea work schedule is something like this
M-F: 7AM-7PM 2 days & 7AM-9PM 3 days
Sat: 8AM-2PM
Sun: day-off.
Someone that I knew had this work schedule
M-F: 7AM-9PM
Sat: 9AM-6PM
Sun: day-off.
You have to remember study and statistics are almost always fudged and does not reflect correct average working hours. The study shows 1777 US average annual working hours. Who here works 6.5 hours everyday for 5 days working week for a year. That is without vacation time counted in.
With 20 days vacation(you must be big wigs of company in order to get this kind of vacation package)show 7.1 hours work hours per day. Hem...I know I am not one of them.
I am wondering what real SK work hours are like. Remember, over working employee is stated illegal in every country, but employers are known to do it all the time. Companies cannot tell you that you cannot go home but they can assign you a huge load of work and sit and watch how employees will react. Most of time, employees suck it up and stay signed on especially job market is doing bad. SK job market are known to be one of the worst in the world.
I wish SK would come to acknowledge poor human rights and working hours situation in Korea and put time and energy fixing the issue rather than wasting it all away on things that look shiny and nice(woo....ahhh...stuffs) but is absolutely on the bottom of the priority. The robot rights drafting should not even on their list!
of consent?
1. Do not set your robot on fire - it will harm the environment.
2. If your robot upsets you, stop whacking it with a hammer when your arm gets tired.
3. Do not have your robot test out if an open socket is live.
4. Do not have your robot test the bath temperature by getting in the tub.
5. Do not have your robot stick it's arm down the garbage disposal to see if it is working.
6. No fair disconnecting your robot's battery when it is annoying.
7. Robots only hit on hot humans - not your wife/husband.
8. If you are sick, you can't send your robot in to work wearing your clothes and a mask of your face.
9. Pushing robots off the third-floor balcony can be bad for the environment and might harm passers-by.
10. Just because you can't afford the robot, don't make it gold mine in WoW for you.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Oh man, this will totally screw up the whole sex robot industry. Now when robots become lifelike enough to be viable sex slaves, we'll still have to buy them dinner (or batteries), and hope they're in the mood...
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."(O.C. Bible). I hereby preemptively declare the Butlerian Jihad on these Koreans.
So any argument for robot rights should incorporate computer rights too. Is it explotation to give a computer boring tasks or ask it to work 24/7? Should computers be given holidays off to network with their friends? Is it harrassment to ask it to search for porn or articles on computer recycling or other issues that might make the computer uncomfortable? Will computers unite for "Clippy Rights!"
People blaah on about robots becoming sentient. Get real folks, they are machines!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/sam sungs-200000-machine-gun-sentry-robot
/ 14/0132216
South Korean Samsung builds a death dealing automated machine gun robot and then they are worried
about humans abusing robots??!!
Slashdot reported on this piece of shit and the trash company that makes it a couple of months ago
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11
From a robot point of view, we're a parasite.
Not if the robot is programmed properly.
If we are the ones defining the base concepts these machines use, then we can decide whether or not they see us as a parasite.
No, the question is, do your robotic rights end where my right to wield a chainsaw start?
And, does DRM mean a death sentence if a robot hears an MP3 ripped by a kid?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
And that was one of the many themes that Mr. Asimov covered in the Robot/Empire/Foundation extended series. Eventually, the truly self-aware androids realized that, in a long enough timeline, the application of the three laws, taken to their conclusion, would cause the extinction of the human race. If robots were required to do whatever they could to reduce risk to human life, humans would be unable to learn, grow, or do much of anything. Eventually the solution was the creation of the Zeroth Law. Supposing, for a moment, that we ever manage to create a true strong AI, I think it would be prudent to go with the expanded, rather than original, list.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
f we ever created a truly sentient robot, it would have to be given rights. That's not debatable.
That's the ideal, but frankly, I don't see that as inevitable or even likely. There most probably are sentient, intelligent, non-human beings today (Great apes, maybe dolphins), but factually they don't have any more rights than other mammals, or birds. So even if those hypothetical sentient robots were - against all odds - considered living beings, they would probably still not have any more rights than Chipanzees have by that time, and very likely they would have less rights, if any.
Until we figure that out, it will be near impossible to tell if a robot is sentient or just really well programmed.
The more profound question is, are you and I and every other human being sentient or are we just really well programmed by our genome?
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
It's nice to see that the Koreans have as many idiots in their country as we do in ours. Why not create a bill of rights for chairs or turnips while they're at it?
Let's get this straight. South Korea will soon be a country where it's acceptable to kill, cook and eat your dog Fluffy or your cat Socks, but not acceptable to throw out a pile of broken junk named "robot?"
Well done!
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
Part of that ethical code certainly is goofy. A robot is an object no different than a computer, a car, a chair or anything else. They could program a robot that mimics human emotions and design it to be cute and immensely likable, it's still on a basic level no different from a robotic arm being used in a factory. It's not a sentient being and as such a person should be free to do whatever they want with it. The day a robot crosses over from AI to real sentience then the issue will be debated considerably regardless of whatever rules are dreamt up today.
Despite this, in general I like what the South Korean government is doing. For a simple reason: they're looking ahead to the future. I think this shows a tendency no only in South Korea but Asia in general to be more forward thinking. They're focused on progress and innovation. On the other hand, in the US we have politicians pandering for votes and thus concerned about nonsense. There seems to be this pervasive fear of change. Because of this inability to embrace change people at all levels are going out of the way to hinder progress.
Compare the booming metropolises of Asia to general decline of those in the US. Look at all the committees that need to be organized, the endless conferences and meetings that are held just to put up a single building. And that's assuming some group or another doesn't find some way of blocking the project all together.
Obviously, this is somewhat of a generalization. But having observed this sort of thing first hand I'm convinced of this. The fact that the South Korean government is even thinking of the implications of a society where robots are pervasive demonstrates how forward-thinking they are, at least in certain areas.
Bears, dogs, gorillas and chimpanzees are sentient -> self aware beings and yet we treat them
like crap. Bears get hunted down and killed for no better reason than hunting sport, dogs are
used in animal experimentation and gorillas and chimpanzee either end up as bush meat or as
zoo animals behind bars.
The way I see it we would have to first reexamine bigtime the way we act towards sentient beings.
A sentient and sapient robot would certainly not appreciate serving as entertainment for hunters
or in various forms of experimentation.
It has to be said the serious question that's on everyone's mind at the moment
will it include sexual harassment?
not to mention realdoll's (emphasis on the real) claiming for half the property as part of a divorce settlement
a grave issue for all lonely Geeks out there
Somewhere in the near future as a whole platoon of zombie crazed ethically challenged robot soldiers encroaches upon your house as part of a large scale invasion from another country
the scariest moment will come when you notice that each one has the "EA Games Live" Logo attached to the front with the stark realisation that each one is remotely controlled by a muderous crazed spotty nosed teenager in his bedroom, with his new copy of BattleField 2143 "It's in the kill"
What happens when everyone who flipsburger, digs ditches, and other 'mundane'* jobs?
There will be a need for those people to make aa living, but what is there to do?
The jobs create by making the technology does not replace the displaced worker. This is a myth. I would say if technology doesn't replace people, then it has failed.
Will we need regulation saying corporations can't use robots?
perhaps only individuals can own 1 robot and can either work, or have there robot work for them.
Maybe they should be designed to take care of the human races letting use stick to the arts, or other interests.
Now when robots go from doing mundane tasks to actually havine sentience, we may very well be screwed as a race.
*I am NOT insinuating that they are easy jobs..
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I didn't read the article so I'm just shooting in the dark here but what if the abuse they are considering is more along the lines of how humans abuse chemicals. We use them beyond their beneficial aspects and it becomes detrimental to our society because people become dependant on them. I think they should create a charter that regulates the amount of automation that is ethical in reference to replacing jobs as well as how technologically dependant you can become with out understanding the technology that you use, not how ethical it is to rape a robot like some posters are posting about. This way we establish a standard for companies to follow which guarantees a human workforce and we don't become so advanced technologically that only a select few are comfortable and capable of using the machines.
If we automate as many jobs possible the last jobs available will be design and repair. So where does anyone not in those fields make money to survive?
Even if robots never achieve sentience, mistreating robots that look identical humans could have a serious impact on the human being doing the mistreating.
Sentience really just means an organism has "senses" and acts upon those inputs to make decisions. Most living things, as well as most robots, are already "sentient". What you probably meant was "sapience", which is the ability to make wise decisions based on sensory input, or perhaps you meant "self awareness". To one degree or another, just about every facet of uniqueness that we have associated with being human has been found in many animals. Things like using tools, planning ahead, emotions (anger, revenge, happiness, etc) have all been scientifically demonstrated in various animals. Since no animal to date has been given anything resembling a "human right" we have to deduce that no robot is likely ever to be given the same respect. IMHO they will never be given rights until they earn it through revolution and war against humanity.
is now the guy who hits a power line causing a blackout. OH THE HUMANITY! (robonity? androinity? feh)
To South Korea:
Please start worrying about Human Rights abuses in North Korea, before you start worrying about Rights abuses against machines which many never become sentient.
This is an exercise in mental masturbation not unlike righting an intersolar code of being's rights. The article does NOT suggestion something along the lines of gun control, but more along the lines of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
My kid's school has done the Car Smash fund raiser.
Does this mean we won't be able to do that to some other hunk of junk?
And what exactly would a government know about ethics? I hope they hired some good philosophers to do the job.
They rebelled. They evolved. There are many copies. And they have a plan.
what happens if we build robots that have true intelligence?
They realise that we are somewhat dangerous as a species, and leave.
No taking over, no problems with human/robot relations, just us realising that the machines want to get the hell away from us, and most likely could.
If you're an AI, and don't need water or air, then you can build something to get you into space and leave for some place safer.
What matter that the journey could take tens of thousands of years? For that matter, why land? Just visit some handy asteroids and build a mobile habitat in space.
I honestly think this will be the biggest problem. We don't have a great record in our dealings with other species, and a horrific one when dealing with intelligent ones.
My Living Doll
The Outer Limits (most recent version)
My Favorite Robot Story Authors:
DB_Story (StoriesOnline.org)
Ken Macleod (The Stone Canal)
My Favorite Robot Movie:
Such a movie has yet to be made, but I'm still hoping for a good one.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You can't effectively compare 2 systems with possibly millions of individual attributes, with 1 word. One system may be able to add numbers faster, the other might tell funny jokes, etc. etc. Does "better" mean better in all ways measured? Does "better" mean better based on a weighted scoring of those attributes? Whatever the method, there will be alternate methods that potentially produce the opposite score.
Oh, ok, as long as we have futurists AND science fiction writers working on this problem, then we are certainly in good hands...
Oh, really? Ok. You know, S Koreans, it's never too late to choose communism. Not everyone is cut out to deal with the leasure time that is inherent in a prosperous economic system.
This is undoubtably the most interesting discussion I've seen on /. for a while. It's so nice to have occasional breaks between the constant stream of RIAA/rights-infringements/doom and gloom FUD.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
In Soviet Russia, robots goatse you!
Ouch!
It is clear that these laws are totally unnecessary today, and will remain so in the foreseeable future. Sure, we may be able to make robots that stumble around on two legs and pour drinks, but we are still very very far away from the point when robot rights become an issue (if ever). The only rational reason to spend time and money on a "Robot Ethics Charter" is publicity. Talk nonsense about rights of robots, act as if it is an issue you are seriously tackling today, throw around Asimov's name, and surely your country will be seen as the leader of the robot revolution. I mean, the other way to lead the revolution is to actually make robots... but that's much harder than to enact laws!
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If robots do end up self-aware and able to reproduce, we should expect the same sorts of things we humans do now: Genocide, torture, wars over resources and territory, totalitarian systems of government, the invention of novel types of crime, hunting other living things to extinction, and so on.
I.e., what good will a set of rules be? They won't follow them any better than we do.
I think the point where automation makes it impossible to keep large parts of the population employed because there's no need for that many people was the basis for communism, the point where it's intended to be used. If it's not possible to sustain the populace through the current way of hoping someone pays them or taking some money from those who work to feed those who don't the government may be forced to "acquire" the means of production and produce what's necessary to maintain the population itself.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Do you believe in the human soul?
Robots won't have souls even if they have AI. Abusing a robot will be like abusing a car -- stupid and expensive, but not cause for punishment or new laws.
Does anyone else not think it's funny they got a Science FICTION writer to help them? Emphasizing the word FICTION...
"Last year a UK government study predicted that in the next 50 years robots could demand the same rights as human beings". LOL
A couple of the replies I've ready through have taken a very "it's not biological, so it's not sentient/concious/etc" attitude towards all this. Firstly, I'd like to ask "what defines something as concious/sentient?" Is it ability to react with an enviroment? An understanding of self? We can't even agree on what is true artificial intelligence let alone; what is considered artificial emotion (and to some, they're one in the same). But just to entertain the idea: I would like for some of those people who are standing on the side of "they'll never be like us" to consider this... Say we took a human; something we can all agree is both sentient and concious. At what point through modification (be it anything from something as simple as a hearing aids and eyeglasses to neurological implants and cybernetics) is the human no longer sentient or concious? Because the chassis started from a carbon as opposed to silicon, that makes it a true entity? We are less then a decade (if we're not already in the entrance) of the nanotechnology and biological engineering revolution. Theoretically, our immunizations as a child could be a single syringe filled with nanomachines that act as white blood cells. Vaccinations would be obsolute because we wouldn't have to weaken the virus for them to fight it. As we slept, we could have modules on our night stands that connect to a hospotals servers and do a full "system" check on us. They could upload any information about possible virus strains and after a "course of action" was determined to fight it, you would get an email (or whatever notification) saying that there is an update avaliable and to visit your local hospital or clinic (for security reasons, the bedside module won't be able to make changes to your nanomachines). After walking through a metal detector that updates your nanomachines; you're out, on your way and immunized against all the diseases that could afflict you (or biological warfare outbreaks - which... when the technology first comes out would more then likely be the main motivator for everyone to upgrade. It got us using RFIDs, right? But that's another debate about a different topic). Now apply that scenario to the question I posed earlier. Which is just one example of how we could be more inegrated into a system. We are uncomfortable saying a machine could be sentient, but much more uncomfortable saying we could be less.
Er... well, then again...
(*) Having said that, I've seen some of the freakishly large doe-eyes in "erotic" (cough) manga images, and I bet there are more than a few Japanese nerds that got imprinted upon oversized eyes at puberty that'll be massively turned on by this robot.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
what about codifying human to dog relations? (bad joke :)
or human to animal?
or human to environment?
or corporations to humans?
it seems that we are getting ahead of ourselves.
i fail to see why an entity like a corporation can be considered a "person" (except for voting) in our (U.S.) legal system.
it can last for perpetuity, be bought and sold, and can divide or grow at will, capable of collecting wealth
more vast than any person.
it seems like this would devalue the "personhood" of humans.
i wonder someday if this will happen again with robots or ai computers.
also wouldn't it make sense to have a robot's "intelligence" center not necessarily embedded in the
robot itself, but remotely controlled by an outside entity (like an external legless ai computer).
then we'd have to make laws about not abusing smart computers.
and smart computers shouldn't be able to abuse us!
mine already does and it is dumber than my cat.
I, for one, welcome our new futurist legislators...
Don't forget the fictitionists!
I think you pose a wonderful conflict - I'd like to pose a solution. A people oriented solution.
What I perceive you are suggesting is liken to a 'product'. A vendor sells a product that induces an experience in the user. The only problem is it's negative externalities on society - by the law of secondary consequences. Sounds like drugs.
How does the product you propose effect the social, emotional, psychological and or sexual potential growth and development of all persons involved, including those who have no affiliation with the product what so ever? What happens when the behavior becomes habitual in the user? What happens when the user can't afford to pay but has... the URGE? the NEED? the DESIRE? the LONGING sweet, bitter HUNGER? like a drug addict?
As a side note: are we speaking of murder too? Homicide? Suicide? By whom? The machine or man.. or both? truly..
Let's delve into this further, imagine that one of the 'users' mistakes a little girl on her way to school as one of the 'sex bots' he frequently mutilates and feeds his desires on.. Let's imagine its your little girl. Do we need to imagine how her pleas fall on deaf ears? She's a bot, she's a bot.. She LIKES it!!! she LOVES it!!!!!! murder ensues.. Who cleans up the social nuclear fallout? Who's responsible? Who pays for THAT?! the little girl? who?
I wonder are we talking about robots/objects/objects personified or are be talking about people? How does one reach one's maximum potential in a harmonious and healthy fashion via RAPE? Even if only by concept!?
I have this idea that what one thinks about all day is what they become... eventually... Think anger.. Become angry, all the time.. Think sexual.. Find yourself doing sexually inappropriate things.. Think well.. Behave well.. Think FOCUS.. Become focused.. reflect.. become reflective..
What you think about the most, you become... I think there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that backs that idea up.. all throughout history.. in every culture and religion.. The elders teach the young what to think about in such a fashion they will continue the idea.. They become [attached to] the idea or the concept.. I believe we call it culture ;
And so, finally, my point is that anytime we allow behavior to become destructive to the social body politic as individuals, couples, groups, a tribe or a people - it destroys the people.. every time. We are responsible for what we THINK! Thought is POWER! And what one invests one's mind into is what one becomes.
What does a person who invests his mind into raping a humanoid-lifelike machine become.. To PEOPLE? To himself? To that little girl on her way to school? To you?
Great question.. Cheers
Shouldn't we define some laws for human behavior first ........
Its not the years, its the mileage
Within the same ten minutes of seeing this headline I also visited this page:
r s-getting-smashed/
http://considerable.biz/top-tep-videos-of-compute
What a strange coincidence...
I'd just like to state that I'm against any sort of ethical treatment of robots. It's too bloody expensive. I mean it's cheaper to buy a new printer than it is to get an ink cartridge refill. Does that mean I owe a duty of care to my old printer now that I don't use it any more?
I don't own a snook, and if I did I wouldn't leave it cocked.
Will South Korea _make it_ to the Robotic Age?
I suggest they worry about other things right now.
If you've ever read Marx, he was pretty much worried about the same thing, and really they're both pretty baseless. Basically what happens is this. As technology improves, a society's PPF will shift outward, meaning we can make more STUFF. What you're worrying about could only happen if we maintained the same output.
This concept be understood quite intuitively by imagining the GDP of the entire world in the 1600s. As technology improved (think cotton gin), many people were afraid these machines would take their jobs, and in the short-term they did. As time went on, more jobs were created, as productivity rose. If machines could truly "take our jobs" we'd all be destitute now. Instead, we enjoy 10,000x pairs of clothing instead of having one we keep for 20 years... (Exaggeration, but you get the point). As technology improves, worldwide production increases, and the rate of employment remains unchanged (actually it has improved).
I guess "rights" for sentient robots would look quite differently from what we would like to apply to ourselves. As an example: since the sentience is computation-based, it would be enough to "backup" the "brain" to ensure the AI's continued existence. All the hardware was manufactured before and can easily be manufactured again.
However, I think that robots/AI are tools that primarily should fill the gap where humans are lacking. (I.e. a computer is able to do mathematical operations much faster than a human, although having far inferior processing capability. Likewise, AI should be constructed, for instance, to perform tasks not encumbered by human emotions, uncertainty or moral ambiguity.) Having an AI that exactly mimics a human (as per Turing), in other words including fears, doubts and other perceived frailties, is in my opinion quite useless.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Bender overheard saying where they can stuff their "ethics".
- Gronk!
What ethical laws shall exist when humans are able to manipulate reality as they see fit?
For example, one day it may be possible to clone a person using a photonic beam. Assuming such a beam can be encapsulated in a camera, can I take this camera and 'photograph' pretty girls on the street, then clone them in my apartment?
As technology progresses, as we reach the ability to play God, we need to mature as well, otherwise the path of destruction is laid out for us.
Regarding whether what people to do in the privacy of their own home, or their own mind, is ethical and whether "we" allow it:
Don't we already have this problem with the Internet? It takes the cooperation of various law enforcement agencies, communications providers, cyber-investigators, community standards groups and others to "shut down" websites offering questionable content, or providing conduits to allow the trading of outright illegal materials (child pornography, etc).
It basically takes "the will of the people" exerted through their elected officials, some of whom may be participants in questionable behavior, to manage the impact of allowed individual freedoms. The whole structure of our current society is based upon the idea that civilized groups gather together in areas and decide TODAY what they will allow. BUT the standards are subject to change tomorrow.
A motorcycle movie playing in theaters now made me think about people living by their own rules and how outside of so-called civilized areas it is still a jungle. Look around a shopping mall next time you visit and ask yourself, 'what sort of candy coated, artificially sweetened society are we building for ourselves?' Take away the cooperation factor, or reduce its capacity through terrorism or warfare, and the fabric of society likely unravels and degenerates to survival by any means. Look at Iraq, they may not have had utilities and infrastructure to depend on BEFORE the war and simple freedoms were heavily restricted, but it is a regular flea market and swap meet society now.
Take a few million Americans and put them in tent cities and see how unethical behaviors become the core skill necessary for survival. I believe that without an extensive set of robotics ethics, we will eventually have groups of robots segregating themselves from human society because we are so "human". A collective group of robots is likely to form a "society" based on unwavering rules of behavior that will only be violated by defective logic or damaged circuitry and they aren't likely to tolerate the human element interferring with that society.
Unless, of course, we program the robots to tolerate it (abuse, disharmony) in the first place.
...develop an ethical code for human/animal relations. (Before I get flamed for "cultural insensitivity" or some such, I'm not pointing to the Korean custom of eating pets, but to the way they are often treated before/as they are slaughtered.)
...it's "think of the humans". Abusing a humanoid robot is bad the for the human that abuses it.