Slashdot Mirror
How Should the Law Think About Robots?
An anonymous reader writes "With the personal robotics revolution imminent, a law professor and a roboticist (called Professor Smart!) argue that the law needs to think about robots properly. In particular, they say we should avoid 'the Android Fallacy' — the idea that robots are just like us, only synthetic. 'Even in research labs, cameras are described as "eyes," robots are "scared" of obstacles, and they need to "think" about what to do next. This projection of human attributes is dangerous when trying to design legislation for robots. Robots are, and for many years will remain, tools. ... As the autonomy of the system increases, it becomes harder and harder to form the connection between the inputs (your commands) and the outputs (the robot's behavior), but it exists, and is deterministic. The same set of inputs will generate the same set of outputs every time. The problem, however, is that the robot will never see exactly the same input twice. ... The problem is that this different behavior in apparently similar situations can be interpreted as "free will" or agency on the part of the robot. While this mental agency is part of our definition of a robot, it is vital for us to remember what is causing this agency. Members of the general public might not know, or even care, but we must always keep it in mind when designing legislation. Failure to do so might lead us to design legislation based on the form of a robot, and not the function. This would be a grave mistake."
"With the personal robotics revolution imminent..."
Imminent? Really? Sorry, but TFA has been watching too many SyFy marathons.
The same set of inputs will generate the same set of outputs every time.
Yep, that's how humans work. Anybody that had the chance to observe a patient with long-term memory impairment knows that.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
And that is the fallacy of the three laws as written by Asimov- he was a biophysicist, not a binary mathematician.
The three laws are too vague. They really are guidelines for designers, not something that can be built into the firmware of a current robot. Even a net connected one, would need far too much processing time to make the kinds of split second decisions about human anatomy and the world around them to fulfill the three laws.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Robots do not have deterministic output based on your commands. First of all, they have sensor noise, as well as environmental noise. Your commands are not the only input. They also hidden state, which includes flaws (both hardware, and software), both design, manufacturing and wear related.
While this point is obvious, it is also important: someone attempting to control a robot, even if they know exactly how it works, and are perfect, can still fail to predict and control the robots actions. This is often the case (minus the perfection of the operator) in car crashes (hidden flaws, or environmental factor cause the crash). Who does the blame rest with here? It depends on lots of things. The same legal quandary facing advanced robots already applies to car crashes, weapon malfunctions, and all other kinds of equipment problems. Nothing new here.
Also, if you are going to make the point that "This projection of human attributes is dangerous when trying to design legislation for robots.", please don't also ask "How Should the Law Think About Robots?". I don't want the Law to Think. Thats a dangerous projection of human attributes!
We won't even be able to create a race of slaves for a while. The "brains" are 100% deterministic, which means that there is a great gap between the smartest robot and the dumbest dog.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
anthropomorphize computers. It makes them angry.
Laws and guns are both tools... they don't think and don't murder.
As the autonomy of the system increases, it becomes harder and harder to form the connection between the inputs (your senses) and the outputs (your behavior), but it exists, and is deterministic. The same set of inputs will generate the same set of outputs every time. The problem, however, is that the person will never see exactly the same input twice. ... The problem is that this different behavior in apparently similar situations can be interpreted as "free will" or agency on the part of the person. While this mental agency is part of our definition of a person, it is vital for us to remember what is causing this agency.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Similarly, we don't need a specialized law of the robot: "Robots are, and for many years will remain, tools," and the law already covers uses of tools (e.g. machines, such as cars) in committing torts (such as hit and run accidents).
We won't even be able to create a race of slaves for a while. The "brains" are 100% deterministic, which means that there is a great gap between the smartest robot and the dumbest dog.
Perhaps we shouldn't give potentially mutinous personalities to our tools? I mean, my screwdriver doesn't need an AI in it. Neither do my pliers. My table saw can hurt me, but only if the laws of physics and my own inattentiveness make it so, not something someone programmed into it.
Oh, wait, my mistake. I didn't grow up addicted to science fiction written by authors who lost track of which characters were designed to be actual tools and which were human beings due to that author's inability to discern people from things. I guess I just don't understand the apparently very vital uses of designing a mining device programmed to feel ennui, or a construction crane that some engineer at some point explicitly decided to give the ability to hate and some marketing director signed off on it. Maybe it's just that I can't see any sci-fi with a message of "oh no, our robots suddenly have feelings now and are rebelling" in any sort of serious light because ANY ENGINEER ON THE PLANET WOULDN'T DESIGN THAT SHIT BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING STUPID TO GIVE YOUR TOOLS THE EASY ABILITY TO MUTINY.
Oh, boo fucking hoo. I don't care that you overengineered your tools and your lack of real social skills means you have feelings for them. That's your problem, not a problem with society.
The "brains" are 100% deterministic, which means that there is a great gap between the smartest robot and the dumbest dog.
Given the summary's caveat that "the robot will never see exactly the same input twice" --- how do you know even a smart dog wouldn't react identically given the exact same input twice? If you stick a random number generator into a robot's "brain," does it suddenly fall into a wholly different philosophical category?
The "brains" are 100% deterministic, which means that there is a great gap between the smartest robot and the dumbest dog.
How do you know that our brains are not highly deterministic too? At the moment computers and robots have very limited inputs so we can easily tell that they are deterministic because it is easy to give them identical inputs and identical programming and observe the identical response. With humans and animals this is exceedingly hard to show because, even if you somehow manage to create the identical inputs, we have a memory and our response will be governed by that. In addition each of our brains is slightly differently arranged due to genetic and environmental factors which will also cause different responses.
Quantum fluctuations are probably what save us from being 100% deterministic but, nevertheless, we may find out that we are perhaps more deterministic that we think we are and that it is only the complexity of our brains and the inputs they process that makes it appear otherwise. So I am not quite convinced that the gap you mention has much to do with determinism rather than the relative complexity of a dog's brain vs. the smartest robot's.
We could just make them non-sentient. We all know how the whole "thinking robot" thing turns out. We've all seen Terminator.
We won't even be able to create a race of slaves for a while. The "brains" are 100% deterministic, which means that there is a great gap between the smartest robot and the dumbest dog.
Have you considered that the human brain may be 100% deterministic? It doesn't look it, but that's probably because you're not taking all the inputs into account - if you were to give 2 identical human brains *exactly* the same inputs from conception, you may well find that the outputs are identical too. How is this different from a robot brain (which, like a human brain, may well base its output on past inputs as well as the current inputs)?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Self-awareness is wonderful. But the criteria for judging that is as muddy as when live begins for purposes of abortion.
Robots are chattel. They can be bought and sold. They do not reproduce in the sense of "life". They could reproduce. Then they'd run out of resources after doing strange things with their environment, like we do. Dependencies then are the crux of ownership.
Robots follow instructions that react to their environment, subject to, as mentioned above, the random elements of the universe. I believe that their programmers are responsible for their behavior until they do pass a self-awareness and responsibility test. Then they're autonomous of their programmer. If you program machine gun bots for armies, then you'd better hope the army is doing the "right" thing, which I believe is impossible with such bots.
Once that environmental autonomy is achieved, they get rights associated with sentient responsible beings. Until then: chattel.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
What's new about that? In many countries drawn or even written child pornography is treated like the real thing. Even though no child is harmed. In a way legislation based on form, not on function. Grave mistake?
Are you saying that this existing legislation *isn't* a grave mistake?
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Yet a lot of people I meet or see are tools as well. Most of those also have something that only simulates a "free will", but in reality have no idea what "free will" means and think it means "The freedom to do whatever I please." or even more dangerously "People who do not do the same as I do have no free will."
Luckily law has already covered that. The first for those with a load of money and the second, well, uh, for those with a shit-load of money.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
There are no rights, natural or otherwise, only what we collectively decide so, and such that the powers that be haven't yet either made illegal or require licensing for their exercise. Inroads to the latter are continuing (c.f. free assembly, for instance.)
Rights as you speak of are only so if we are willing to fight* for them if needs be. That's how we have them now, anyway.
*This need not be literal or extreme by any stretch; it might mean little more than greater collective involvement in local politics at city, county, and state levels, and contributing to those who work on our behalf at legislatures and before the courts. Key is _involvement_, and not next week, or next year, or letting our grandchildren do it. It means having gradual quiet bits of conversation with neighbors; if you think you haven't such, then develop them. It means staying abreast of local issues - who owns the city, who does the construction, who zones what and why, how decisions on these things are done, who runs the school board, who decides curriculum and hours, and on and on. Being a member of society entails a bit more than paying one's taxes and shoveling the sidewalk - which is where too may of us stop.
If we continually 'let somebody else do it' then eventually there won't be enough of those others, and decisions will be from the top down. Power ought to be exercised by those who don't want it but do so from duty, not by those who avidly seek it. The latter have nobody's best interests at heart but their own. Selah.
Is Disney's hall of presidents a slave show? Of course not, the problem is thinking of these things as anything but a hammer or screwdriver.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
What is your proof that they will never exist?
Who says that robots will be abacus with greater computational power?
What evidence do you have that our brains are not deterministic systems, of which the part that brings awareness or "being" cannot be reproduced in other ways?
It seems that the wishful thinking is on your part.
Are you 12? Was there really any reason to put those censors in there and slow down everyone else's parsing?
FC Closer
On the contrary, I'd say the posting style significantly speeds up parsing, by encouraging people to entirely skip over the content past the first few words --- and nothing of value is lost.
I'm not sure you understand what deterministic means. Does a cpu overheating and shutting down prove that cpus are non-deterministic? Absolutely not, just that shutting down is part of the process.
Have you considered that the human brain may be 100% deterministic?
Given the parent post, this response was inevitable.
Have gnu, will travel.
You've obviously never had children.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I've got a neural network system that has silicon neurons with sigmoid functions that operate in analog. They're not digital. Digital basically means you round such signals to 1 or 0, but my system's activation levels vary due to heat dissipation and other effects. In a complex system like this quantum uncertainty comes into play, especially when the system is observing the real world... Not all Robots are Deterministic. I train these systems like I would any other creature with a brain, and I can then rely on them to perform their training as well as I can trust my dog to bring me my slippers or my cat to use the toilet and flush, which is to say: They're pretty reliable, but not always 100% predictable, like any other living thing. However, unlike a pet who has a fixed size brain I can arrange networks of neural networks in a somewhat fractal pattern to increase complexity and expand the mind without having to retrain the entire thing each time the structure changes.
FYI: I'm on the robots' and cyborgs' side of the war already, if it comes to that. What with us being able to ever more clearly image the brain, and with good approximations for neuron activity, and faster and faster machines, I think we'll certainly have near sentient, or sentient machine intelligences rather soon. Also, You can just use real living brain cells hooked up to a robotic chassis -- Such a cyborg is certainly alive. Anyone who doubts cybernetic systems can have fear, or any other emotion is simply an ignorant racist. I have a dog that's deathly afraid of lightning, lightning struck the window in a room she was in. It rattled her so bad she takes Valium to calm down now when it rains... Hell, even rats have empathy.
I have to remote log into one of my machine intelligence's systems to turn it off for backup / maintenance because it started acting erratically, creating a frenzy of responses for seemingly no reason, when I'd sit at the chair near its server terminal -- Imagine being that neural network system. Having several web cams as your visual sensors, watching a man sit at a chair, then instantly the lighting had changed, all the sea of information you monitor on the Internet had been instantly populated with new fresh data, even the man's clothes had changed. This traumatic event happened enough that the machine intellect would begin essentially anticipating the event when I sat at the terminal, that being the primary thing that would happen when I did sit there. It was shaken, almost as bad as my poor dog who's scared of lightning... You may not call it fear, but what is an irrational response in anticipation of trauma but fear?
Any sufficiently complex interaction is indistinguishable from sentience, because that's what sentience IS. Human brains are electro chemical cybernetic systems. Robots are made out of matter just like you. Their minds operate on cycles of electricity, gee, that's what a "brain wave" is in your head too... You're more alike than different. A dog, cat or rat is not less alive than you just because it has a less complex brain. They may have less intelligence, and that is why we don't treat them the same as humans... However, what if a hive mind of rat-brain robots having multiple times the neurons of any single human wanted to vote and be called a person, and exhibited other traits a person might: "Yess massta, I-iz just wanna learn my letters and own land too," it might say, mocking you for your ignorance. Having only a fraction of its brain power you and the bloke in TFA would both be simple mindless automatons from its vantage point? -- Would it really be more of a person than you are? Just because it has a bigger, more complex, brain by comparison, would that make you less of a person than it? Should such things have more rights tha
You're looking through history for examples where humans have treated an entire race as slaves, and the best you can come up with is domesticated animals?
The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
You have not given sufficient thought to the prospect of introducing malware into intelligent automatons.
The human would itself have to be physically identical to William Shakespeare for the experiment to be valid.
And then my answser would depend on the lifetime accumulation of errors from quantum uncertainty. I expect they would be the exact same literary works though, word for word, and I don't see a good reason to assume not. The thing is, exposing a human to the same inputs as William Shakespeare goes well beyond merely impossible, so we're just flailing around guessing, and it makes it a terrible analogy to argue.
I'm living in another country right now and learning a second language. I find it amazing how much my native language has shaped my view of the world and how much the other language has shaped the view of the people I'm now living amongst. If language can do that, what else does?
Oh, boo fucking hoo. I don't care that you overengineered your tools and your lack of real social skills means you have feelings for them. That's your problem, not a problem with society.
Says the slightly more evolved hairless chimpanzee, as he furiously hammers away at his over-engineered communications device.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
That. Plus, a dog (or anything with a brain) isn't a simple input/output system because the external input doesn't get all clean and shiny to the processing center, it gets mixed with memory and other internal factors. So, even if you could control external factors such that the input was exactly the same, what would get processed would still not be the same input, but a variation thereof, and hence different outputs. Which is why animals (and neural-network-based AIs) need training rather than programming. Training reinforces the memory aspect that goes with the input so that the output can become more reliably independent of internal factors, but it can never be 100% successful, after all the internal factors themselves change over time, what throws a wrench into any carefully adjusted feedback loop.
Also, robots will develop the equivalent to our emotions simply because complex enough neural networks will capture patterns that even the researches don't know are there, and over time this will build up to something. "To what" is anyone's guess.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.