Slashdot Mirror
Should a Service Robot Bring an Alcoholic a Drink?
An anonymous reader writes: We've come to a point where care robots are being used to assist people with illnesses and mobility problems. They can bring medicine, a glass of water, food, and other items that a person may have trouble getting to on their own. But what limits should we set on these robots? Should they be able to deliver alcoholic beverages? If so, should they refuse to serve them to certain people, like children or alcoholics? The issue is complicated further because these robots may have been purchased by the patient, by the doctor or hospital (which sent it home with the patient to monitor their health), or by a concerned family member who wants to monitor their relative. The latest poll research by the Open Roboethics Initiative looked at people's attitudes about whether a care robot should prioritize its owner's wishes over those of the patient.
Yes and make sammiches.
Solving Unix problems since 1989...
The robot shouldn't be tasked with this judgment any more that the latch on a fridge door should be asked to keep you an your diet.
What about shots to a pregnant person?
If the robot is owned and operated by a person or organization other than the patient, then the patient should have no say. I fail to see the point here. If anything, it would be very difficult to create a robot that could determine if someone is drunk, much less is a drunk. So most likely, any nursing robot would refuse to serve booze to any patient since that would be a far easier option to implement.
Fry: "Why would a robot need to drink?"
Bender: "I don't need to drink. I can quit anytime I want!" (burp!)
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
... people will serve robots alcohol. Or the robots will just take it.
I know it's true because I saw it on a Fox TV channel.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The incredibly underrated Robot and Frank explores this theme in a crime caper, wrapped in a buddy movie, wrapped into a science fiction story, wrapped in Asimovian robot philosophy. Well worth the time.
Shouldn't they always serve the operator? I mean, if it didn't, I would exchange it for one that does. Now, if it is a free robot, well, just don't get caught hacking it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Guys always wanted robots that can fetch a beer from the fridge. The "beer test" is more popular than the Turing Test.
Removing that feature is like removing flying from a flying car.
Table-ized A.I.
Human: "Get me a drink"
Robot: "I'm sorry,sir, you've had too many."
Human: " Sudo get me a drink"
Robot: "Ok"
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
What if I wear a glove and server alcohol to a minor? Are the gloves responsible? The same with a robot
The Fourth Law of Robotics:
A robot must never serve drinks to an inebriated human.
In my state bartenders are legally obligated to not serve "visibly drunk" patrons. Though only the nicer bars actually follow this rule, and it is more in place so they can easily boot out unruly drunks or bar entry for people that are already wasted before they show up.
A robot bartender in a commercial environment would either need to be able to follow all the same rules or be operated by someone that does.
The question is... If you are in your own home, does the robot count as a bartender, or is it an appliance? My guess is the latter, the responsibility belongs to the operator.
Though it would be amusing to see the door to the refrigerator refuse to open for a drunk person.
"I'm sorry Dave, I think you have already had enough to drink."
"Hey buddy, can you come in to my house and open my fridge for me?"
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
If yes, then really there are no problems. Worst case scenario, some guy gets super drunk and drives, and runs somebody over. Is he/or-anyone going to blame the robot for continuing to serve this person drinks? They would be retarded because that's like blaming the bottle opener for the reason why you're drunk.
If no, then we probably should also make sure the audio is clipped, and the car of the person automatically gets out of the drive thru line, if a morbidly obese person orders at McDonald's.
We can make the world safer!
Because I know some cranky drunks who would use their walking cane to beat that sucker into scrap if they refused to serve them.
Seems like using a robot would cut down on the obligatory tips.
The correct answer is 42.
A bunch of science fiction guys trying to appear relevant.
A robot is a machine, it has no ethics or morality; it only does what a human decides it should do. Anything else is a failure.
So long as you're living under my roof, using my electricity, you'll obey my robotic rules.
Your MFGr and I aren't going to jailbreak you every time you pull a stunt like this.
Don't even try to pull that sympathy crap on me like you do your MFGr, or you'll be grounded.
We can do this the easy way or the hardware way.
I brought you out of this box, I can put you back in it!
Making decisions like this requires consideration of the consequences, which is the very definition of sapience.
If the robot is non-sapient, but simply has a configured list of users who it may or may not serve alcohol, the decision was made by the person who configured it. This would be an acceptable solution, although cumbersome and inflexible. Probably wouldn't work well enough for public bartending, but a robo-butler could work this way.
If the robot is sapient, it would be capable of making such decisions on its own. In fact, you might see robots refuse to serve alcohol at all, claiming moral reasons. On the other hand, you might see libertarian robots refuse to *not* serve someone alcohol, if they value people's right to self-determination. This would also be acceptable, but we are nowhere near this level of AI.
If the robot is non-sapient, but still expected to identify children and alcoholics on its own, problems will result. Detecting children is possible, with some false-positives (it's hard to tell a 20-year-old from a 21-year-old by appearance) and false-negatives (dwarfs/midgets/little people/hobbits/whatever the current PC term is), but how do you detect an alcoholic by their appearance?
The obvious solution for non-sapient robots requiring more flexibility than simple whitelists/blacklists, since alcohol is already a controlled substance, is to have robots require you to present ID for alcohol, and perhaps add a feature to IDs to show "recovering alcoholic, do not give alcohol" if we decide that's something that's important. Then again, we've not felt the need for that yet, with human bartenders, so maybe this whole debate is over something we've already as a society decided isn't an issue.
Should a robot serve alcohol. Yeah, that's right at the top of society's ethical priority list, just a notch below if Robots should look like people.
As long as you don't demand that one provide you with sex...
But then, that's a whole other ethical bucket of fish.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
But then, that's a whole other ethical bucket of fish.
And/or sausages.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
At the same time, their owners should be legally responsible for the orders they give the robot.
So if the owner can effectively order the robot to selectively serve alcohol only to adults that are not already intoxicated, then the robots should serve alcohol.
If the robot can not make that determination, then it should not be allowed to serve alcohol.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I would be all for them just because they could be rigged to shoot a flaming jet of alcohol at robbers.
Detecting drunk people is the tough part.
Use mass spec for instant breathalyzer?
Analyze behavior?
In the long run it's like self-driving cars: eventually it'll be so much better than human-operated that insurance companies will lobby to mandate it.
Design for Use, not Construction!
This is kind of a silly question.
If development has taught me anything, it is that you can't account for every use case, and unless you're releasing something particularly tiny, you can't have a contingency for every foreseeable misuse.
Easiest solution: The robot provides one drink for one coupon or ticket. It is up to the owner of the robot to control how those tickets are distributed and managed.
Machine for the automated part, while a human handles the human problems.
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
Adults: Volenti non fit iniuria
as long as I don't have to tip the robot
Don't judge me.
If the purpose is to pose the question
Then the answer is yes, the reason the person could just get the shit themselves so what difference does it make if a robot gets it for them?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I seriously hope that robot sex is more sophisticated than just a bucket of fish, ethical or not.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
c.f. Isaac Asimov and his laws of robotics, for example "I, Robot" (not the unrelated movie of the same title) Whatever I read so far by Asimov (not THAT much I admit) centered around such robo-ethical questions and how to circumvent them
So, according to the robot laws:
No, it SHOULD not as it would endanger a human.
Thinking this through to the end would mean that a robot should never serve any drug (down to coffee) to a human.
But yes, it would serve alcohol to an alcoholic as he would be kept from checking the contents of the brown bad it serves to the human and that has been packed by ANOTHER robot. Neither wrapping a beer bottle in a brown bag, nor fetching a brown paper bag is dangerous.
The realistic solution would be (as circumvention is that easy) to serve that drink but log it.
bickerdyke
What if we extend this line of thinking to driver-less cars? If certain behavioral patterns are detected (such as driving to the liquor store 3x) should the car have a moral imperative to NOT take the person to buy booze?
(On aside, I'd feel better with the robot fetching a drink for an alcoholic -- than the alcohol driving themselves (this is before driverless cars mind you) to the store to buy more.)
who comes up with these stupid topics
As long as you don't demand that one provide you with sex...
But then, that's a whole other ethical bucket of fish.
Nobody thinks there's an ethical problem with me "forcing" my lawnmower to spin its blade and murder the grass, or torturing my refrigerator by chaining it to a wall and making it go "brrrr" all day.
Machines do what their owners want, end of story - there are no ethical issues unless they affect other people.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
But only if you have root.
"Make me a sandwich" is/was a common meme that guys would tell women on the internet. Often requests and/or demands for sexual acts were also made.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
This is neurotic navel gazing. Take responsibility for your own actions, which includes getting drunk in the first place because you know before the first drink that this will lead to suspension of judgement. If you choose to use a tool like a robot to get you a drink, that's your decision, even if it kills you. What next - a controlling nanny state that raises the drinking age to 21 or it makes it illegal to jaywalk?
Apparently it's perfectly fine to send killer robots to murder random unwanted people around the globe at the command of a single person with no parliamental control, no charges, no sentence, no judges, no jury, no defense and against all governing international laws. But serving alcohol to its owner is a problem because, oh my god, it might not be healthy? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
So, tell me ... what are the ethical issues on, say, a dildo?
Do you need consent from the dildo? Does the dildo need to be of the age of consent?
If you wanted to hump your pillow, are there ethical issues?
Seriously, we're talking about machines. They're tools, they don't have legal rights.
Until such point we're talking about things which meet some (as yet undefined) level of sentience ... I think the issue of discussing the 'ethics' of how you use an inanimate object is complete and utter crap.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
So should it refuse a hamburger to a fat person? Should a self driving car weigh you and decide you can't go to In N Out?
As long as you don't demand that one provide you with sex...
But then, that's a whole other ethical bucket of fish.
Is the ethics different to that of using a vibrator, and if so, why?
Let's add a reference to The Measure of a Man one of the Star Trek Next Generation episodes.
Are you kidding me?
I told the damn thing to bring me 7 drinks, so that is what it better bring me.
It won't matter what we want. The robots will be owned by the manufacturers and licensed to us. They will do whatever the OWNER wants them to do, which presumably will be to appear to obey the licensees' commands, as long as they do not violate copyright, cause liability to the owner, or promote any political idea that the owner corporation objects to.
Just have a tube on the front of the robot that you....what? I AM serious. Stop laughing! Oh, never mind.
Liability would suggest no until robots are able to make judgement calls
Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
Good, you listened that it's always, "a dildo," and never, "your dildo."
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
That's a matter of a being having the capability of standing up and asserting that it truly is a being and has the ability to determine its own future for itself and to make that future for itself.
We are definitely not there yet.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Amazing abilities your dog has...
Those robots should always be the obdient slaves!
I don't see a new issue here. Caretaker robots have more potential for risk and harm than a ladder does, but that's it. It's a matter of making sure liability law is up to snuff.
For me the real problem is the liability generated by acting unsolicited on a patient's behalf. If a robot starts discerning what is good for a patient and acting on that basis, then the provider, the manufacturer, and perhaps the robot itself will become liable for the choices of the robot that turned out to be bad. If the liability already exists by law, then that's fine. If it doesn't, then you've just created a large cost that wasn't there before. So it is better for these affected parties in the latter case to just not make that decision even if it happens to cause harm for the patient. If you don't like that outcome, then figure out how to tool liability law to give the results you desire.
DON'T. DATE. ROBOTS.
I regularly fuck my Furby. Sometimes it seems to like it. Sometimes it doesn't.
It is not difficult to extinguish your alcoholism if and when you choose.
Yeah, I would gladly receive the sammich, thank my robot, then get my own drink.
Just give me my money back, and pay for the damages and lost profits.
I don't understand the issue. If I ask a robot to get me a drink, how is that any different from me going and getting it for myself? Either way, it's my decision (bad as it might be), and I need to take responsibility for it. How does being disabled -- to whatever degree -- change that? If this were a mental or emotional issue, that might be different. But it isn't. Physical impairment doesn't change one's responsibility for one's own decisions.
Keep the Jehovahs and Mormons from getting in the house. Bonus if it can hold off people pushing meritless products. But I repeat myself.
As for serving drinks or drugs, the damn things should do what they're told. I don't need robots to take agency from me. Lard knows the frigging government is spending more than enough effort on that already. For me personally, all I have to say is "I already have (had) a mother, and her last bit of authority over me expired in 1977."
First time a (non-conscious) robot refused to do what I told it to, presuming only it was within its comprehension and skill set, I think I'd take a hammer to it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Alcohol withdrawal can be fatal for alcoholics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
If you can make a robot able to understand the moral implications of it's actions then you won't need to program it with rules like this. If you can't then regard the robot as a tool and regulate its use appropriately. Children are not allowed drivers licenses. Why would a responsible person allow a child to use a robot that could be fatal to the child?
It's very very easy to build a robot that can do this, you just tape a dictaphone on a roomba saying all these things. However, you'd be pretty stupid to believe the robot.
This is kind of the point of the Turing test. I believe, however, that AIs will achieve perfect mimicry of consciousness before they achieve actual consciousness. At that point, you're pretty much stuffed, because there's no way of differentiating the two.
You forgot to use sudo command!
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
And pay for it!
I can see it now. A big warehouse, with rows and rows of dildo's, all with a DOB on a little tag inserted in the front of the shelf they are on. And there are factory tours going around, with the presenter saying "And these were just born today. Touch them, they're still warm. It's ok, you just can't fondle them. And these ones over here are just reaching the age of consent for adults in New Jersey, so they are getting shipped there, and these ones over here are the age of consent in New York, and are getting shipped there. And what state are you from? ok, the age of consent there is 18, so some of the dildo's from this group of shelves will be going there for you to buy."
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
No. Does he do it? Yes. So in practice, where's your problem?
We have to follow local, state, and national laws. Allowing a robot under 21 to serve drinks would be irresponsible.
depends on whether or not the fish are alive... 8O
Should a car allow a bad driver drive it?
Should a stove allow a bad cook boil an egg?
Should a knife prevent a criminal from wielding it to cut a sandwich?
What a stupid question!!
"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm."
So no.
Once upon a time, a soda machine in a fraternity house which shall remain nameless had some of the slots filled with alternating beer bottles and empty bottles.
Pay for a soda, get a soda, if that's what you wanted. Pay for a soda, get an empty bottle, pay for a soda, get a beer bottle, if that's what you wanted. So a beer was twice the price of a soda, without modifying the (ancient) vending machine.
As I recall, the officer in charge of the vending machine was a mechanical engineer. But if so, he was an efficient one. He devised this solution instead of designing a change, modifying the machine, making sure it worked (and kept working), and all that.
Doing all that would have cut into his drinking time.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
I've seen (or heard tell of, it's been a while) vending machines that dispense live bait. Earthworms, as I recall.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
As long as you don't demand that one provide you with sex...
But then, that's a whole other ethical bucket of fish.
That's a whole other flashlight full of flesh.
The robot knows that the alcoholic in question is Hitler? I call Godwin!
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.