Slashdot Mirror
The Case For a Federal Robotics Commission
New submitter hmcd31 writes: In a new paper for Brookings' series on the future of civilian robotics, University of Washington Law Professor Ryan Calo argues the need for a Federal Robotics Commission. With advancements such as driverless cars and drones taking to the roads and skies, Calo sees a need for a government agency to monitor these changes. His paper details many benefits a robotics commission could bring, from funding to assisting in law and policy issues. The policies developed by this FRC are argued to be particularly important, as their impact in creating an early infrastructure for robotics could create an environment that lets the technology grow even more.
he means "make panicked decisions retarding business formation while entrenching early adopters".
Dog is my co-pilot.
With robotics entering every aspect of our lives, such an agency would gain control over every aspect our lives.
I think mabey upgrading our current agencies to be more tech friendly sure, but do we really not more buerocracy?
special autonomous taxes, too.
Statists gonna State
Regulatory capture: it'll end up getting controlled by the very entities it's supposed to be controlling: robots, like the other Federal Commissions... :p
Adding a layer of overseers adds a layer of cost to a marketing decision. Areas with high levels of automation and effecient production include food processing such as making cheese, semiconductor manufacturing, automobile welding, painting, ammusement park rides, etc.
What can government oversight do besides drive up the cost for the remaining US manufactures? The decison to automate is a business decision.
Government regulation should only intrude in safety such a OSHA guidelines. Anything beyond that is wasted resources and a higher cost of doing business.
The truth shall set you free!
than the CAN-SPAM act.
I keep getting 15 moderator points regularly. This is the 4th or 5th time in a row. How could that be?
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
Great we are going to have ObamaBOTs! Like nationalized robots are going to work better than nationalized health care. Are we going to have to buy Roombas whether we need them or not?
I don't want to do a sig now
"To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
A commission for robotics would probably be legitimizing stuff like law enforcement drones and such, because "there is an overseeing commission watching over to ensure compliance". The tiny problem with that is of course, the one making the drones has influence over the one making the rules and the one applying the rules. Speaking of which, who likes Skynet?
FAA oversight of drones is truly helping that technology. No for-profit use allowed, no guarantee when they might get around to allowing it. Now let's oversee some robotics!
We need less federal government, not more.
Is it just me, or does this sound like an ambitious Law Professor looking for a new job as head of a newly minted agency?
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
and more need to encourage building of many more.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Do you need a good modem?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Did they get further in Basic Grammar lessons than you managed to do?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
You mean, like FCC for robots? Yeah... That'll work. The government does such a great job running what they have now, right? Some of the stupidest smart people inhabit this site...
...a federal agency gets involved and you are not working at or the owner of one of the big companies that got in and rose to the top BEFORE the federal agency intervention.
A new federal agency will raise the hurdles to entry by any new upstarts and write lots of rules and regulations (assisted by "input" from the "market leaders" who will be grandfathered in). If this goes like the FAA, some of the early guys will even get to write requirements documents (which they will copyright and sell) that every new entrant into the field will have to buy and live by. Any future robotic home appliance might have to be Roomba-compliant, and require years of government testing and oversight before getting "approved" for sale - something the "early entrant" was never required to endure. All 3D printers might have to meet the standards that the current corporate giant (whith its "lobbying" money potential) can "advise" the agency to require (which just might...by PURE coincidence, of course only be met by use of certain patents they will happily license to their competitors for certain fees and other considerations...)
After the FAA arose, aviation became a place for entrepreneurs to go if they wanted to go broke rather than a field of endeavour for people with bold ideas who wanted to innovate.
After NHTSA, building new auto companies became a "thing" only for billionaires and multinational mega-corps
The rise of FCC regulations impacted the computer industry in ways many forget ("bye bye" Tandy and their TRS-80, and farewell Apple II line... (people forget that new emissions rules were part of what doomed thos products long before the PC and Mac arose))
As the years go by and field after field of American high tech creative freedom is demolished like this I keep waiting for young entreprenurial people to wake-up to this disease - but unfortunately each new wave of guys enters a different field and then goes all-in for government regulation after becoming successful "early entrants" in their field. This is how freedom dies.
for systems like auto drive cars / drones.
The last think we need is for a bad music file to be able to make auto drive car have a software crash that makes it go out of control.
The only thing this will accomplish is require every company to pay a ton of money for the privilege of asking for permission to sell something. Screw that. Screw that HARD.
Basic Grammar? Of course! How brilient!
So it's OK to question the president? But not the shit mouths of a fundmentalist group? Why?
I know it's silly and old-fashioned to bring up the Constitution when discussing the creation of yet another sclerotic Federal Bureaucratic behemoth, but this proposal is ridiculous on its face. Even the absurdly over-stretched interstate commerce clause and general welfare clause do not even come close to justifying this sort of overreach by the Feds.
IF (and that's a *big* if) this kind of regulation is needed at all (personally, I can't think of one good reason for it), then I see no reason why it can't be handled by the states. Centralizing policy and regulations for what amounts to the convenience and increased power of "bureaucrats armed and clerical" (in the immortal phrase of Dabney) is NOT allowed by the Constitution.
I'd vote in a heartbeat for any Presidential candidate, regardless of party, who would carry out Goldwater's pledge: "I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Sounds to me like every aspect of a Federal Robotics Commission would be the triumph of special interests over liberty...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
I didn't say you are not allowed to question people.
Maybe after Basic Grammar, you should start Reading Comprehension: Enabling Effective Arguments In Online Forums.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Lets recap here, the topic is about the President, and you're concerned about your period?