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.
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.
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).
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]
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
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
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.