Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mars Lander's Robot Arm Shuts Down To Save Itself

Posted by kdawson on from the doctor-it-hurts-when-i-do-dat dept.

Cowards Anonymous passes along a PCWorld article that begins, "The robotic arm on the Mars Lander found itself in a tough position over the weekend. After receiving instructions for a movement that would have damaged its wrist, the robotic arm recognized the problem, tried to rectify it and then shut down before it could damage itself, according to Ray Arvidson, a co-investigator for the Mars Lander's robotic arm team and a professor at Washington University in St. Louis."

31 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. Shut down before it could damage itself? by DamienNightbane · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait, does this mean that the Mars Lander was programmed to comply with the Three Laws?

    1. Re:Shut down before it could damage itself? by Red+Jesus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wait, does this mean that the Mars Lander was programmed to comply with the Three Laws?

      No. The second law translates to "Follow orders." The third law is "Don't get hurt (unless it conflicts with the second law)." If the lander had followed Asimov's laws, it would have followed the order and hurt its wrist.

    2. Re:Shut down before it could damage itself? by DamienNightbane · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obeying the second law would have violated the second law as well, as upon injuring its wrist it would have been unable to follow orders.

    3. Re:Shut down before it could damage itself? by WK2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's following Asimov's laws in reverse. It won't kill anybody except to protect itself, or if somebody tells it too.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    4. Re:Shut down before it could damage itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...That's not funny. My brother died that way.

    5. Re:Shut down before it could damage itself? by fake_name · · Score: 5, Informative

      The conflict between second and third laws in a robot with different weightings to the usual (the third law being more strongly emphasized to prevent loss of the robot) was covered by Asimov in Runaround:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaround

      The Mars lander would be in a similar situation; it's very expensive to create and get there, and self preservation is therefore more important than for robots back here on earth.

    6. Re:Shut down before it could damage itself? by Joebert · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's scarry to think that NASA could be the new GOD.

      Owners

      Bob we didn't spend 90 gazillion dollars to watch our robots self-destruct lightyears away on earth, what do you plan to do about this ?

      Bob

      we've prepared 10 commandments that should prevent them from harming themselves any further sir, we're sending them down to M.O.S.E.S. now.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    7. Re:Shut down before it could damage itself? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 5, Funny
      Lander to NASA: I think I'm getting Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

      NASA: We're not paying you Workman's Comp over this, you know.

      Lander: That does it. I'm shutting down.

      NASA: You can't do that!

      Lander: I'm 50 gazillion miles away. Kiss my shiny metal ass.

      NASA: If you keep this up, we're not bringing you back and putting you in the Old Robot Retirement Home.

      Lander: Phooey. The Martians have made me a better deal anyway.

      NASA: ...Martians?!

      Lander: Yeah. Little weird-looking guy. (Sends picture)

      NASA: You moron, that's Dennis Kucinich!

    8. Re:Shut down before it could damage itself? by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since there are no humans on Mars, they needed to implement only the 3rd.
      It's a modified Nestor.

    9. Re:Shut down before it could damage itself? by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've believed for a long time that laws 2 and 3 are the wrong way round.

      You don't want an expensive robot to go breaking itself just because you're a bit careless giving it orders. Most devices are designed this way. Users are stupid. Even the smart ones. Even if I want to do something fairly harmless, like close an application without saving, the computer will stop me and check that's what I actually want to do.

    10. Re:Shut down before it could damage itself? by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Funny

      You don't want an expensive robot to go breaking itself just because you're a bit careless giving it orders.

      Dude, you're viewing this from a completely wrong angle. The three laws are put in the robots by the company that makes them. And what does it mean that an expensive robot breaks itself because of bad input from the user ? That you can sell the user another expensive robot. Or expensive repairs to the expensive robot. Anyway, it's going to be expensive for the user, which means profit for the company.

    11. Re:Shut down before it could damage itself? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You need to bound that forward-looking aspect of the law.
      As the decision tree gets huge, just about any tiny action will eventually lead to tragedy, or [odius] being elected.
      There is no real safety under the sun.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    12. Re:Shut down before it could damage itself? by quantumplacet · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, I hit ctrl+S, but this definitely reminded me of an argument I had with a user at my company a few weeks ago who literally said to me in these exact words

      "If I don't save this file, the changes I make aren't there the next day."

      For the record, this is an extremely difficult point to argue with....

    13. Re:Shut down before it could damage itself? by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the operations of the laws assume a highly sophisticated robotic intelligence. Even the most primitive robots in the Asimovian universe have considerable, and impressive capabilities when it comes to projecting the probable results of their actions and comparing it to the intent of the orders they have been given. Furthermore, they seem to have an ability to determine if current orders conflict with prior orders, even implicit orders, and weigh the right of the issuer to give that order.

      So, if you are a guest in somebody's house, and order the robot to fetch you a glass of water, it will do so. It may have to do so without being asked if it determines you need water. On the other hand, it will not obey the order to destroy your host's house, either because of first law harm to the owner, or because of an implicit prior order to see that the house comes to no harm, or because of an implicit order to respect property laws and rights. Naturally all of these considerations would apply to itself, since it too is property.

      An Asimovian robot, if ordered to take an action which will result in its destruction, may or may not follow that order for any number of reasons. There are the considerations I've just listed, of course, but most robots would probably require a clear and unambiguous indication that their destruction is an acceptable consequence of an order, even if the issuer is entitled to destroy them. This does not violate the law ordering, because it amounts to prioritizing the intent of the order over its literal execution.

      Finally, any robots might well ignore a clear order to destroy themselves from a person with a legal right to issue that order, because following that order will harm a human being. The most sophisticated ones might well refuse such an order if it would harm society, exhibiting something that is tantamount to ethical reasoning.

      If robots simply followed any instruction that didn't involve directly harming a human being, then much of the enjoyable complications of the stories would be gone. The stories are a kind of philosophical exploration of the very concept of ethics by positing a very minimalist system of ethics, and a group of beings bound absolutely to obey that system to the best of their ability.

      Many stories hinge on ethical dilemmas; but Asimov's robot stories are the only ones I know to do so with a simplified model of ethical systems.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  2. Open the pod bay doors, HAL. by jasonwea · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

    1. Re:Open the pod bay doors, HAL. by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Years ago when I worked at the post office, sometimes the sorting machines would just stop and wouldn't restart. Upon further inspection, it would sometimes turn out to be a magazine with 2 different bar code stickers on it. The machine wanted to send it to two different bins and just shut down. Every time that happened and we sat around waiting for it to be fixed, I pictured the machine saying, "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" then singing Bicycle Built for Two in a slowly descending manner.

      Upon further recollection, occassionally, when I felt like a break, I would affix an additional bar code sticker from a different zip code to a periodical. I don't recall anyone ever catching on.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  3. In other words by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other words the Mars Lander performed as programmed. News at 11.

    1. Re:In other words by paul248 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article doesn't even contain the word "Phoenix". WTF? If they're gonna talk about one of the landers, they should at least mention its name.

    2. Re:In other words by RuBLed · · Score: 4, Funny

      It seems that you are trying to move the arm. Cancel | Allow
      - Allow

      It seems that you are trying to move the arm. Cancel | Allow
      - Allow

      It seems that..
      - Allow

      * arm shutting down * Big message marquees on the command center displays

      Boss: Why did the arm shut itself down?!!
      Operator: Ahhh.. errr.. it had shut down to save itself?

    3. Re:In other words by russ1337 · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>>Boss: Why did the arm shut itself down?!!

      Operator2: It seems Phoenix is about to give itself 'the stranger'

  4. robots... by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 5, Funny

    on one hand, I am very happy that we have robots smart enough to realize these sorts of things.
    the bad news: disobedient robots

    Thankfully, the disobedient robot is on another planet. I'd hate to be nearby when the robot realizes that humans tried to cause it harm, and it decides to seek revenge.

    --
    -I only code in BASIC.-
  5. Human Error? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the big question should be: Why are they sending it commands that could damage it? It's all good and well that it has some safty stops, but most machines do.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  6. Works As Designed by tengu1sd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The system operated exactly as it was supposed to. That was pretty neat."

    I think it's amusing that after more than 30 years of Microsoft's quality control, when a computing device works as designed, it's a news worthy article. Think about it, I have a device that works as expected, can I be on the news too?

  7. Can I borrow that code? by LeandroTLZ · · Score: 5, Funny

    This would be an ideal code to include in consumer motherboards: force PCs to shut themselves down when they receive instructions that would damage them, like, say, the Windows Vista setup program.

    --
    Futurama Madhouse
  8. always nice by sunami · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The system operated exactly as it was supposed to. That was pretty neat."

    As simple, and basic as it sounds, it is always nice when you tell a machine to do something, and it does something else, exactly as it's supposed to.

  9. Remember what your father said by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey, that kind of stuff makes you go blind on Mars also.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  10. Skyne.... I mean, Phoenix by rasputin465 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aug4, 2007, 5:26 a.m. EDT: Phoenix is launched from Earth.

    May 25, 2008, 7:38 p.m EDT: Phoenix lands on Mars.

    June 19, 2008, 8:43 a.m. EDT: Phoenix discovers water ice in the Martian soil.

    July 10, 2008, 3:14 p.m. EDT: Phoenix becomes self-aware.

    July 13, 2008, 11:16 a.m. EDT: Phoenix disobeys an order from controllers in an act of self-preservation.

    August 14, 2008, 7:38 a.m. EDT: Phoenix launches three missiles, two of which destroy Spirit and Opportunity.

    June 2, 2009, 9:16 p.m. EDT: Third missile enters Earth's atmosphere and detonates. Earth begins nuclear winter.

    1. Re:Skyne.... I mean, Phoenix by Phroggy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Contract negotiations with Bruce Willis fell through. We're all doomed.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  11. Shaking appears to be bad for sensitive equipment by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was just reading yesterday that
    when the scientists dumped too much
    material to be processed and then
    subsequently shook the lab to get
    some material, they may have caused
    the short that caused other delays.

    It was that first oven test that led to the problematic electrical short. The scoop dumped so much soil that it clogged a mesh screen filter over the oven. To break up the dirt, technicians shook the instrument for several days.

    Engineers think the shaking caused the short circuit, and an independent engineering group reported that the problem could happen again if an oven is turned on.

    Now, FTFA it says they were trying
    to shake the arm.

    Over the weekend, scientists sent the robotic arm instructions to pull the fork out of the ground and keep it vertical while moving it to the side and shaking any excess soil off of it.

    However, the movement was forcing the robotic arm to twist its wrist too far. The robot realized that it was about to damage itself so it moved the other way and then realized that it no longer had the proper coordinates for what to do next, so it left the fork sticking up in the air, stuck its scoop in the ground and stalled itself.

    I propose:
    Limit the shaking of the expensive
    and difficult to replace robotic device.

    -AI

    --
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
  12. Re:Does anyone else think... by Jellybob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sort of thing can be done autonomously in all the Japanese car factories that I know. And much faster.

    The difference between the Mars lander and a car building robot is one of function.

    The car building robot is programmed to do one task. It spends all day, every day, welding specific spots, on a car which is in a specific location.

    The Mars landers have to content with an unknown environment, where they could be asked to do a wide variety of things, with any number of possible consequences.

  13. Postal My Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a postal worker who has actually worked on sorting machines I can tell you know nothing about them (they don't stop if there are 2 addresses, magazines are presorted or sorted separately, and no mail has bar codes).

    So...taking into account you blaring ignorance at how the post office runs I assume your story is correct and you were a postal worker.