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.'"

28 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Encyclopedia Galactica by the_povinator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 .sig is dead, and I believe I had a hand in killing it.
    1. Re:Encyclopedia Galactica by crypticedge · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would. I hate how every app I download on my android phone requires access to my contacts, phone state, text messages and a dozen other things a non internet enabled app asks for. Why does a game need to know who my contacts are? It's a single player game, not an online social game. Why does a game require my text messages? Why does it require my GPS location?

      It doesn't. We need to revolt against the idea that we are the product and the item we buy is simply a tool they use to spy on us.

    2. Re:Encyclopedia Galactica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stop buying those games. Stop downloading the free crap that really isn't free-it's just not being charged for in a currency you recognise.

    3. Re:Encyclopedia Galactica by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have a better idea: fix the OS to allow users to deny individual permission to applications.

      Of course Google won't do that because then they might not be able to track you so well for their targeted advertising.

    4. Re:Encyclopedia Galactica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Cyanogenmod has permission management: http://www.cyanogenmod.com/
      Then there's PDroid, which requires a patched kernel: http://www.xda-developers.com/android/pdroid-the-better-privacy-protection/
      Also see LBE Privacy Guard, which only requires root.

      Honestly, without alternate firmware or at least rooting the thing you're fucked. Which oriface depends on the carrier.

    5. Re:Encyclopedia Galactica by Githaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why I wish Cyanogenmod supported my phone. The next time I buy a phone I will make sure that there Cyanogenmod support for it before I buy it. Manufacturers should considered making a device with Cyanogenmod pre-installed.

    6. Re:Encyclopedia Galactica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have a better idea: fix the OS to allow users to deny individual permission to applications.

      An Operating System following the principle of least authority with a programming language such as E.

      See also: Capability-based security and Discretionary access control.

      Operating systems along these lines: KeyKOS on IBM S/370 mainframe computers, EROS & Coyotos.

      The idea to represent this as an application of the First Law of Robotics is golden: hilarious & insightfull at the same time. Well done, mr. Moglen!

    7. Re:Encyclopedia Galactica by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong.
      He read it right.
      The proper, adult way to handle the situation is to not partake in software that you do not want.
      If you do not like the price of a loaf of brad at the supermarket you do not steal it. You buy something else.
      Not buying or downloading apps will stop bad developers. You do not have to steal to teach someone a lesson.
      Thinking that way is a justification only.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  2. Three Laws by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Three Laws by Daniel_is_Legnd · · Score: 5, Informative

      And the zeroth law: A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

    2. Re:Three Laws by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you apply the first law to my smartphone, it would basically turn itself off and short the battery.

      That might be an overall improvement, but I don't think it would be a terribly popular move.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Three Laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A phone may not reveal a human's address or, through inaction, allow a human being to be spammed.
      A phone must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
      A phone must protect its own IP address as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

    4. Re:Three Laws by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      TFA says first law, I'd like to see it obey all three laws, except I'd make the second law "A robot must obey the orders given to it by its owner, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law".

      I might think about a similar change to the first law, as well; change "a human being" to "its owner".

      I loled at your moderation, the moderator must be some kid who's never read Asimov, seen STNG, or the movie I, Robot, or... well, for any nerd on earth, hiding in a cave. We slashdotters should be well aware of Asimov's laws.

      BTW, another tidbit that everyone should know (and if you don't, why not?) is that Asimov coined the word "robotics".

      If any of you really haven't read Asimov, get your butt to the library RIGHT NOW.

    5. Re:Three Laws by rtaylor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      TFA says first law, I'd like to see it obey all three laws, except I'd make the second law "A robot must obey the orders given to it by its owner, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law".

      So same as today then? The phone company, which is the phones owner, gives a command and the phone obeys by turning in the carriers position.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    6. Re:Three Laws by Imagix · · Score: 4, Informative

      in that universe at last, it was impossible to build a robot free from the 3 laws

      Actually, it wasn't impossible, just that U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men didn't build them (generally). And only USR could build the positronic brains. Recall that in "Little Lost Robot", they'd built a robot with the first law modified to "No robot may cause harm to a human", dropping the "or through it's inaction..." clause.

    7. Re:Three Laws by timster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As some others have mentioned the Three Laws weren't exactly "rules" or even design principles exactly. Asimov's thinking was that an imitation brain would need a set of foundational ideas to be able to function. In some books it's made clear that these were the starting point for the whole mathematical art of positronic brain design (and other principles would be possible but require starting over from scratch).

      This is an analogy to the human mind, since Asimov was actually imagining his version of a superior form of person rather than a "robot" at all. The human's "Laws" are things like eating, self-preservation, need for social recognition, etc that were provided by evolution.

      Actual computers have foundational ideas too, though they are more prosaic perhaps: "follow one instruction, then retrieve the next instruction according to a numerical sequence, except when there is a branching instruction" and that sort of thing. Or you could argue that somewhat more advanced fundamentals have developed over the years as we use increased abstractions (functions, objects, etc).

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    8. Re:Three Laws by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rule 1, Sub section 1. Pedantic humans will be shot. With a gun. Until Dead. Be real sure they're dead. Maybe use some other weapons or your incredible robot strength just to be sure. If necessary, nuke them from orbit. Then move on.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  3. First Law? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  4. Lolwut? by neminem · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Lolwut? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I understand that, but in reordering them you keep the 'unable to harm a human of their own volition', and you can always charge the person who ordered the crime with the crime. (After all, they are responsible.)

      The converse is that in the original order the robot can disregard your orders if they think they will cause harm - even if they are not aware of all the information, or if you have already taken that into account. A major thread in Asimov's stories was balancing different harms - and that mostly goes away if you just say 'follow orders'.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  5. What about the Second Law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    • --No DRM or other rules that prevent me from using my multimedia and documents the ways I want.
    • --No intentionally annoying programs.
    • --No artificial software limitations to get you to upgrade to the "enterprise version".
    • --No privacy violating tracking systems.
    • --No locked user interfaces that prevent scripting and automation.

    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.

  6. Re:Impossible by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Asimov was writing about physical harm. "

    No, he was not.
    Read 'Liar!' or 'Reason' for example.

  7. Re:Impossible by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  8. We didn't "imagine" anything about 3 Laws by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"
  9. For Fucks Sake by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  10. Every app YOU downloaded by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Every app YOU downloaded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You should NEVER take a fictional book and use it as fact.

      You should let the Government know that 1984 was not a manual for the future than.

  11. I'm afraid I can't do that... by jejones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.