Developing the First Law of Robotics

wabrandsma sends this article from New Scientist: In an experiment, Alan Winfield and his colleagues programmed a robot to prevent other automatons – acting as proxies for humans – from falling into a hole. This is a simplified version of Isaac Asimov's fictional First Law of Robotics – a robot must not allow a human being to come to harm. At first, the robot was successful in its task. As a human proxy moved towards the hole, the robot rushed in to push it out of the path of danger. But when the team added a second human proxy rolling toward the hole at the same time, the robot was forced to choose. Sometimes, it managed to save one human while letting the other perish; a few times it even managed to save both. But in 14 out of 33 trials, the robot wasted so much time fretting over its decision that both humans fell into the hole. Winfield describes his robot as an "ethical zombie" that has no choice but to behave as it does. Though it may save others according to a programmed code of conduct, it doesn't understand the reasoning behind its actions.

Comments

Same as humans ...

[BarbaraHudson]

Though it may save others according to a programmed code of conduct, it doesn't understand the reasoning behind its actions.

Someone sacrificing their lives by throwing themselves on a grenade to save others doesn't have time to think, never mind understand the reasoning behind their actions. And that's a good thing, because many times we do the right thing because we want to, and then rationalize it later. Altruism is a survival trait for the species.

Re:Same as humans ...

[gl4ss]

sure, but this is a fucking gimmick "experiment".

the algo could be really simple too.

and for developing said algorithm, no actual robots are necessary at all - except for showing to journos, no actual AI researchers would find that part necessary, the testing can happen entirely in simulation - and no actual ethics need to enter the picture even, the robot doesn't need to understand what a human is on the level a robot that would need to in order to act by asimovs laws.

a spinning blade cutting tool that has an automatic emergency brake isn't sentient- it's not acting on asimovs laws, but you could claim so to some journalists anyways.. the thing to take home is that they built into the algorithm the ability to fret over the situation. if it just projected and saved what can be saved, it wouldn't fret or hesitate - and hesitate is really the wrong word.

So, a design failure then.

[RoverDaddy]

In both Asimov's story and this experiment, the real moral seems to be that somebody failed to specify the proper requirements, or run a reasonable design review. "If you can't save everybody, save who you can" seems like a reasonable addition to the program.

Re:I, Robot from a programmers perspective

[thewolfkin]

to be fair I thought the whole point of the book was a series of edge cases which would be hard to think of that cause all the "malfunction". The whole point of the book wasn't that the three laws were perfect but that they SEEMED perfect until we put them in the real world and suddenly they would appear to "malfunction"

Only as smart as the smartest programmer.

[v(*_*)vvvv]

Bottom-line. We can't program general intelligence and all these systems are following hard coded rules of conduct. So if the robot lacks intelligence, all that is is a reflection of the lack of intelligence in the coder. A program is only as smart as the smartest programmer, because with today's tools and technology, the programmer is the only source of intelligence.

So either the robot was stuck in a moral dilemma and was regretting its failures, or the guy who built the thing has no idea what he's doing. I wonder which is more probable? Well, he admits it, so it's obvious.

Winfield admits he once thought it was not possible for a robot to make ethical choices for itself. Today, he says, "my answer is: I have no idea".

But I will give the Mr. Winfield the benefit of the doubt and assert partial blame on the journalist who sensationalized the story and his research. The truth here is so boring, it would have never made it to press.

Re:I, Robot from a programmers perspective

[houghi]

The three laws were a plot device for his stories, not a programming guide.

Re:I, Robot from a programmers perspective

[DutchUncle]

I think you missed the point of many of Asimov's stories. Edge cases are the normal situation - human beings are always on an edge case in some dimension. Any simplistic set of rules, including all the great slogans and sound bites of capitalism and marxism and socialism and every other political system, are just too simple because the real world is complex.