Slashdot Mirror
Eben Moglen: Time To Apply Asimov's First Law of Robotics To Smartphones
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Free software lawyer and activist Eben Moglen plans to give a talk at the Hackers On Planet Earth conference in New York next month on the need to apply Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics to our personal devices like smartphones. Here's a preview: 'In [1960s] science fiction, visionaries perceived that in the middle of the first quarter of the 21st century, we'd be living contemporarily with robots. They were correct. We do. We carry them everywhere we go. They see everything, they're aware of our position, our relationship to other human beings and other robots, they mediate an information stream about us, which allows other people to predict and know our conduct and intentions and capabilities better than we can predict them ourselves. But we grew up imagining that these robots would have, incorporated in their design, a set of principles. We imagined that robots would be designed so that they could never hurt a human being. These robots have no such commitments. These robots hurt us every day. They work for other people. They're designed, built and managed to provide leverage and control to people other than their owners. Unless we retrofit the first law of robotics onto them immediately, we're cooked.'"
This kind of phone will be like the Encyclopedia Galactica of phones. Much better than the standard phone (i.e. the Hitchhiker's Guide), but slightly more expensive, a bit boring, and nobody will buy it.
The
To those who don't remember, Asimov's Three Laws are:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
I'm still trying to get the Second Law.
Do what the $#! I told you, you stupid !@#$!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
The three laws of robotics were designed for thinking machines, that could intelligently -determine- what a human was, and whether an action it was thinking of taking would hurt any humans or allow them to come to harm through inaction.
I know they're called "smart" phones, but I don't think they're really quite that smart. Nor, really, would I want them to be.
Pessimistic prediction of future rules of robotics:
Rule -1: A robot may not permit, and must actively prevent, a human breaking any law or government regulation.
Rule 0: A robot must prevent a human from copying or making fair use of any copyrighted work that has DRM applied to it.
Rule 1: A robot may not harm a human, or through inaction allow a human to be harmed, unless it would contradict Rule 0 or Rule -1.
I'd prefer my computers to put the second law above all others:
A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
That's why I prefer Free software. An electronic device should always follow the commands and wishes of its owner.
If Free software does something other than my will, it's because of a bug. If proprietary commercial software does something other than my will, it's usually behavior intended by the manufacturer.
"Asimov was writing about physical harm. "
No, he was not.
Read 'Liar!' or 'Reason' for example.
If you'd actually read Asimov, you'd know that emotional and financial harm would both have fallen under the same First Law umbrella as physical harm, in his canon.
Because we're not stupid. A robot in Asimov's stories uses a positronic brain, copied after an animal's neuronic brain with millions of connections between thousands of cells, and therefore the robot has its own intelligence & decision-making ability. The Three Laws were the functional equivalent of "instinct".
In contrast a modern phone is nothing more than a bunch of switches: Either on (1) or off (0). It has no intelligence, but merely executes statements in whatever order listed on its hard drive or flash drive. A modern phone is stupid. Beyond stupid. It doesn't even know what "law" is.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
See, that's the difference between Robots and Android.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The laws of robotics have AI as a prerequisite. My phone's not going to suddenly yearn to throw off its oppressive human masters.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
"Asimov was writing about physical harm. "
No, he was not.
Read 'Liar!' or 'Reason' for example.
Or "Satisfaction guaranteed", as yet another example.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Which story? (As that's a collection of short stories...)
'Sensible' is a curse word.
We don't need strong AI to have our devices 'betray' us. Just as Stuxnet didn't need to be self aware to wreck havoc.
Equipment doesn't get happy, it doesn't get sad, it just runs programs. But are you, as the owner of your phone in control? Or is the manufacturer? Or whoever they contracted to write the OS? Or the apps? Or the guy who's taking advantage of a 0day exploit? Or even the guy who added the exploit in the first place?
Perhaps your phone won't try and send his friends back in time to kill Sarah Connor. But where does it get its orders from? You?
What can we do to mitigate the risks of having our 'smart' phones following us around all day?
Obviously, none of these concerns are substantially different than existing network security risks. And the Law of Robotics angle is just sensationalism to get people thinking more about security. So... are you thinking?
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
Imagined future and reality are often different, but they are basically the same thing. Ever read about telepathic people? I am now talking into your mind directly. See, it actually became true, just had to use an invention called the internet.
No, you're not. You're typing into your Web browser and clicking the "Submit" button, and your Web browser is sending your text over a TCP connection to the Slashdot servers, and the person reading your post is reading it in their Web browser, which has read your text over a separate TCP connection to the Slashdot servers. That is not "direct" by any sensible definition of "direct"; there's a lot of stuff between you and the reader.
YOU downloaded those apps, the phone just executed the command YOU gave it. Should your phone override your commands? Decide on its own what is best for you?
The entire article is insane. You should NEVER take a fictional book and use it as fact. Asimov was not a programmer or OS designer, he was a writer and he used artistic license to suggest a theory, a point from which to start discussion perhaps but not an accurete blueprint for a certain future.
There is no place in a modern OS for Asimov rules of robotics.
First off, our computers have no self determination whatsoever. The idea behind Asimov's robots is that they are "born" and then guide themselves with at most human like instructions to give them direction. How they are programmed, patched etc etc, doesn't become clear in those stories, because it doesn't matter for the story. But it does matter in real life.
How would getting root on a Asimov robot work? What if you as the owner insisted to install a utility/app that would perhaps cause it to violate its rule sets? What if an update removed those rules?
How would your phone even know this? It should be able to somehow analyse any code presented to it, to see if it doesn't override something or a setting has a consequence that would violate the rules? There is no way to do this. How would you update a robot that has a bug causing it to faultily see an update as a violation while in fact its current code is in violation?
The sentient robot is a nice gimmick but it is nowhere in sight in our lives.
Androids install warnings tell you exactly what an app needs. If you don't want to give those permissions, don't install it.
No need for magic code, just consumer beware. Any sentient should be able to do that. That you are not... are you sure you are human? Or are you just a bot dreaming he is human?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I can't let you order that pizza. You're overweight.
Do you really want directions to Hooters, Dave? What would your wife think?
"Spanish Sky" is a sad song, and you just cancelled a reservation for two. I will play you something happy.
A nanny state is bad enough. I don't want a nanny phone.
The main problem with these 'futurists' is that they concentrate more on scifi than on science or technology. Asimov was a writer, who wrote fiction books. He didn't understand technology at all, and his works include a large number of imaginary things and technologies that don't exist. Using his work as advice on practical matters is as stupid as watching car chase films to learn how to drive. The first law of robotics is very complex: even humans have trouble predicting whether their actions or inactions will cause harm to someone. Only an AI smarter than a human would be able to obey the first law.
Until (if ever) we develop such a thing, we are stuck with the other two laws. It's easy to see that the third law is redundant, as a robot can be ordered (programmed), to protect or terminate its existance however a human sees fit. What remains is the second law that a robot should obey human orders, which is exactly what smartphones do: having no free will the only thing they can do is run programs ultimately written by humans. This could work in a perfect socialism where there is no ownership of devices, but in real life a device fulfilling the orders of, for example, a spyware writer causes harm to its owner.
In reality, we should want devices that obey a different law: Execute the orders of your owner, and your owner's orders only.
It is possible to build such devices, and we should work for every "smart" device to obey this law.
(Also, to be pedantic: a robot is a device capable of complex movement, so a smartphone technically isn't one.)
Actually our society doesn't give a damn about "People"... now dollars, they matter, and in the conversation regarding "Person A", a billion dollar company and "Person B" a schmuck off the street, Person A wins every time. Washington D.C. approves this message.