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.'"
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
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]
Gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling, doesn't it? :)
After all, let's be serious here. What will we do? We'll create robots to do our work. We'll create robots who are capable of building other robots (that's been done already). We'll create robots to create the fuel for those robots. And finally we'll create robots to control and command those robots.
All for the sake of taking work off our backs.
And sooner or later, we'll pretty much make ourselves obsolete. From a robot point of view, we're a parasite.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"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
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.)
Exactly. The article hints at an aging populace, so I presume servants of some sort will be common place in nursing care centers. As depressing as this sounds, for those long periods when seniors have no visits from their family, a sentient emotionally equipped servant would be beneficial. Even dogs and cats have shown therapeutic effects in nursing homes.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
A bigger question is, how do we know some humans are sentient?
No, we're The Creators. And much in applied science is at first an effort to make the creators obsolete and to discover later that actually more effort is required in maintaining the technology than doing it by hand (computerized archives for example, in a way it's rediculus businesses have IT-departments...).