Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Contradictory Understandings of "Robot" Sow Confusion In US Law (medium.com)

Posted by timothy on from the this-one-just-heats-and-browns-bread dept.

Hallie Siegel writes: A new paper covering 60 years of robotics in American case law shows that a growing mismatch between how judges think about robots and what contemporary robots can actually do is resulting in inconsistent treatment of how robots are dealt with in the courts. Interestingly, much of this confusion comes down to the definition of the word robot; dictionaries' definitions often contradict each other. This article presents the case that lawmakers and policy makers need to work more closely with technology experts to develop a more nuanced understanding of robotics, lest new technologies overwhelm our legal systems.

100 comments

  1. More importantly... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What I want to know is how US law views various other robot-like devices. For instance, is a giant robot that's piloted by a human considered a robot?
    What about a tele-operated robot, or a waldo?
    Likewise, is a drone considered a robot? At what degree of autonomy does it become considered one?

    1. Re:More importantly... by bws111 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Those questions are pretty much what the paper is about. One of the examples given was a marine salvage case, where a salvage team found a shipwreck that was about a mile and a half deep. It was too deep/too dangerous to dive, so they sent some autonomous subs down. Then they went to court to keep other salvagers away. The court decided that because the people were right above the wreck, and sending humans down was dangerous, the robots could stand in for the humans. The other salvagers were ordered to stay away, just like they would be if humans were diving. But it then raises the question: what if the humans had been on land? Would it still count? Tricky questions.

    2. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No those would be vehicles, just like cars and airplanes.

      The definition of a robot is simple. It is any non-living construct that is operating independently without direct human control or guidance. An automaton.

    3. Re:More importantly... by spacepimp · · Score: 2

      When a drone does autonomous missions (piloted by the FC and mission parameters) take off/land etc, it is technically considered a robot. I fly more robotic missions than I do drone piloting.

    4. Re:More importantly... by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 5, Funny

      What I want to know is how US law views various other robot-like devices. For instance, is a giant robot that's piloted by a human considered a robot? What about a tele-operated robot, or a waldo? Likewise, is a drone considered a robot? At what degree of autonomy does it become considered one?

      The real problem is that very few law schools in this country offer a Mecha Law program worth the name. I mean, it's gotten so bad that even the University of Phoenix had to discontinue their pre-Gundamology degree track for lack of interest. At the same time, the law profession's nativist/protectionist culture combined with our insane immigration policies (specifically Japanese immigration) have combined to create a severe shortage of qualified robotech lawyers in the United States.

    5. Re:More importantly... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      So a refrigerator is a robot? Transition eyeglass lenses are robots? Amplifiers with a feedback loop are robots?

    6. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to your definition. But remember, by your definition, a music box is a robot, and I wouldn't consider that a robot personally.

      Something to keep in mind. Definitions are almost never simple. Definitions for complex systems are even less so.

    7. Re:More importantly... by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Whether something is or is not a robot is really derailing the whole discussion anyway. If you fire a gun or set up a trip wire to fire the gun doesn't for the most part matter. If you set up a meat grinder that's not secure and a person gets dragged into it, whoever designed and approved that could be held liable. If you get summoned to court, calling in on a speakerphone doesn't cut it. Courts have usually dealt with all kinds of indirection, remote action and action-by-proxy before, legally speaking I doubt a robot is fundamentally different just because it's software with bits and bytes.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re: More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about a player piano?

    9. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a refrigerator is a robot? Transition eyeglass lenses are robots? Amplifiers with a feedback loop are robots?

      Actually yes, they are.

    10. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to your definition. But remember, by your definition, a music box is a robot, and I wouldn't consider that a robot personally.

      And you would be wrong. There is no reason why a music box isn't a robot.

    11. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is a Printer a robot?

    12. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely.

    13. Re:More importantly... by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That sort of example strikes me as a classic case of legal overthinking of the problem though. It sounds like the case revolved around nonsense such as whether humans were present near or at the wreck, when really the only real legal question that actually needed answering was "Should first finders get first dibs on the wreck". There's no real complexity added into the mix by robots, merely legal gymnastics introduced by lawyers because they think they can try and spin their argument with a new thing - first that was "on the internet", now it's "robots". There's only a problem because people are making money from making a problem, not because there actually needs to be one from this specific change in technology.

      I've seen similar questions posed around autonomous cars and what the legal liability should be, but the rules of the road are already well established, if your autonomous car illegally drives the wrong way around the roundabout and crashes into someone then you should still legally be at fault. You may wish to try and sue the car manufacturer but that's really no different to the status quo - if you're in a car and the fucking wheel falls off making you crash into someone you're still at fault currently from an insurance perspective, but if it fell off because it was defective you make a claim against the manufacturer.

      So I think the only legal complications come from broken law and legal gymnastics, and if anything robots will force us to tidy up the law so that we don't argue "You can't dive this wreck, it's not safe!" but instead argue in court about what they really mean - "You can't dive this wreck, because we found it first!".

      Beyond that I don't really see robots needing to add much complexity to the law, they're a tool like any other and should be treated as such in law (at least until we have strong AI and concious robots enter the fray if that ever happens). Just as if you pull the trigger on a gun whilst pointing it at someone you can't say "I just pulled the trigger, it was the gun that ignited the gunpowder and launched the bullet into him so it's the gun's fault!" anymore than you can say "I know I pressed the go forward at 100mph button when he was in front of my car, but it was the robot that actually drove into him!". Levels of culpability degrade as they always have - if you explicitly told the robot to drive at someone it's murder, if you told the robot to drive 40mph in a 30mph zone and it hit someone then it's manslaughter, if the robot hit someone all by itself without it being anything to do with you and you did everything right legally then it's a tragic fucking accident that the victims family can sue the manufacturer of the faulty tool (robot) over. I don't see why the law needs to change whether the tool is, say, a runaway non-robotic tractor, or an automated robotic one.

      (Adjust my post as necessary for whatever your current local laws say for determining different levels of culpability)

    14. Re:More importantly... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Yes. However, until now, a printer just sat there and printed. We are now approaching a situation where the office printer can locate you and self-propel to deliver your print job. And on the way, it could knock someone down the stairs. So, who does the victim sue?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:More importantly... by Blue23 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That sort of example strikes me as a classic case of legal overthinking of the problem though. It sounds like the case revolved around nonsense such as whether humans were present near or at the wreck, when really the only real legal question that actually needed answering was "Should first finders get first dibs on the wreck".

      I think perhaps you are oversimplifying the problem. If I were to theorize 2352 potential shipwreck locations based on satellite imagery and publish it, am I the "first finder"? If I get odd sonar pings but don't follow it up am I the "first finder"?

      I believe maritime law may specifically want to grant salvage rights to the first people at the wreck, and anything else opens doors to abuse. Can anyone who actually knows it speak to this?

      --
      LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
    16. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actor is the party initiating the motion to perform the act. That should be enough clarity for the salvage cases like those. And of course, fuck the ancient case-law by enacting the new law, so the new case-law can be collected.

    17. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the last term is negligent homicide. usually in vehicle related deaths one of the drivers gets charged with it. the problem arises when who is "driving"

    18. Re:More importantly... by mindwhip · · Score: 1

      You are overcomplicating again.

      First finders are those first to physically be in the immediate physical proximity (effectively touching distance) to the wreck and confirm its existence and location visually. If you didn't actually go to the wreck (be it in person or with a remote device under human direction) and confirm it is what you suspect, you didn't find it, you only had evidence of its possible existence.

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    19. Re:More importantly... by mindwhip · · Score: 1

      that should be (be it in person or with a remote device either under human direction or autonomous)

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    20. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +4, Interesting? Really? This ought to be +5, Funny.

      "Mecha Law" ... "pre-Gundamology degree track" ... "severe shortage of qualified robotech lawyers" ... ROFLMAO

    21. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same as is a dog or a slave did it, the legal owner.

      This isn't complicated.

    22. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fixed it. Either way it's brilliant.

    23. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe a recruitment campaign targeting employees of the Japanese Agricultural Ministry?

    24. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, if I placed an autonomous robot/drone into the ocean, and let it crawl the ocean floor systematically. Anything it finds I have salvage rights to?

    25. Re:More importantly... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      There generally is no mention of robots in US law, and the operator of a device is fully responsible for its actions. If it breaks and hurts somebody, it depends if the responsible party should have known it would happen; the same as any non-robotic machine that breaks.

      It is almost entirely a non-issue, except in edge cases where a party offers a novel legal theory based on robots being different; as in the salvage case example.

      It is the same as for a pet dog, so that makes it easier to understand that better AI will not change this. A robot will still be the same as a machine, which is also the same as a pet or work animal. If you know it is broken (or bites) and you bring it around people and it hurts them, then the human is more completely responsible; if it is a pure accident, the human is still at least financially responsible.

    26. Re:More importantly... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If I were to theorize 2352 potential shipwreck locations based on satellite imagery and publish it, am I the "first finder"?

      Yeah, that can be handled with existing analysis. A belief is not the same as an action. Knowing where the wreck was never granted salvage rights; getting there and verifying it on-site always was. Sonar pings do not tell you what is actually there, it just gives you a theory. If it was clear water and a shallow wreck, you could just look at it and be the first finder.

      It is a complicated problem, but lets not over-think how complicated it is; robots do not add to the complexity when you already have to consider sonar.

    27. Re:More importantly... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The definition of a robot is simple.

      My problem with this statement is the word "the." It is true that each definition of robot is simple, but that tells us nothing about how easy it is to reduce them to the definition since we know that different published offerings are contradictory.

    28. Re:More importantly... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      This isn't complicated.

      The same as a dog, on a computer.
      The same as a dog, on a porch.
      The same as a dog, in a painting.
      The same as a dog, with no collar.
      The same as a dog, with LEDs implanted in his head.

      But, but... "on a computer!"

      The same as a dog, apping apps, right apper guy?

    29. Re:More importantly... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    30. Re:More importantly... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      We will have plenty of qualified robotech lawyers when the Zentradi invade...

      Talk about illegal aliens taking your jobs, these guys kill you and take everything you have.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    31. Re:More importantly... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If sonar pings "do not tell you what is actually there, it just gives you a theory", then you can say the same thing about vision and touch. A good sonic image can be more detailed than a visual scan in cloudy water. So if looking at it counts, then so should sonic imagery. And nobody has mentioned detail. Which is a gradation with no sharp drop-offs or edges.

      As for touch... if I touch it with a telefactor, have I touched it? What if the telefactor is purely a kinesthetic sensor? Why would that count different from listening to it? Etc.

      There are a lot of places where the existence of sharp boundaries is an artifact of a limited number of ways of action or perceiving. "Light tweesers" are a proof that merely illuminating something is to slightly move it. (There are other proofs.) So if you measure closely enough you can't perceive something (except by depending on ambient differences) without moving it around. And there is a smooth gradation from illumination all the way to robot shovels and beyond.

      Laws are the process of creating artificial distinctions that don't exist in the physical universe. The universe doesn't have many sharp distinctions, but people are so formed as to perceive them, because the in-between areas are either quite unusual or infrequent. I'm considering the density variations of the air between two people to be an example, and I'm having a hard time describing in words something which is obvious from the lack of vacuum. There's a decrease in density over a small distance as you pass through your skin into the air. It's a smooth transition over a very short distance. Then it's relatively un-dense through the air until close approach to the other person where there is another smooth change in density over a short distance of their skin.

      If you look closely enough at the physical universe you don't find sharp distinctions. But those distinctions are very important to entities living at the scale that humans live and living as the velocities we commonly use. Laws should clarify those bounds in a way useful to humans, just as language does, and as casual thinking does. We live our lives at the human scale.

      So. Telefactors, robots, etc. If a robot (not a telefactor) discovers something, why is that different than if a dog discovers something? You are responsible for what your dog does (within limits), but you don't get an automatic claim to what he discovers. You have to act. A telefactor, however, is closer to a (non-autonomous) car. The problem is that it isn't you, but it's acting as a representative of you. So perhaps it should be considered as your agent, and the laws should interpret it as your agent?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    32. Re:More importantly... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If sonar pings "do not tell you what is actually there, it just gives you a theory", then you can say the same thing about vision and touch.

      No. The lack of the quality of sonar data is a totally different issue than Plato's Cave, or the general existential fact that we do not directly perceive the world that that vision is processed and can be faulty.

      If you're willing to bring that in, you'd never be able to label anything as anything. Rule of Law does not go that route. ;) In Law, you only have to consider the likelihood that what you think you saw is really what you saw. It depends on specifics. In good conditions, the human eye is a very accurate sensor, and can differentiate between a ship wreck and a funny-shaped coral reef; sonar only tells you the shape, which in real ship-wrecks is just a bump or structure on the ocean surface. If you have a webcam on the bottom of the boat, and can see something in the image, then that is the same as using your eyes. Sonar, however, just tells you where to look.

      Remote-sensing does not matter at all, sorry. Does the image you see on the sonar screen tell you what is on the bottom of the ocean? No. It tells you there might be something interesting, but it doesn't tell you what is there. A sensor is just a tool, the same as eyeglasses. What does it actually show you? A clear picture, or a fuzzy lump? That is what matters; what the human can see when using the tool. They might still be mistaken, that is handled by completely different legal principles.

    33. Re:More importantly... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I think you're the one who's overcomplicating things.

      A "robot" is a machine under the control of a human being, and stands in the stead of that human being. Rational liability laws would hold the operator liable if the robot did damage, just like any other machine, because the robot is simply an extension of its controller.

      Reasonable laws, then, would also attribute "findings" and good deeds to the robot operator, since the robot, in exactly the same way, is standing in the stead of that human. A representative, as it were.

      It would be no different if a corporation hired an explorer to haul up a wreck. Almost invariably the contracts say the find belongs to the corporation, even though the hired explorer actually, physically "made the find".

    34. Re:More importantly... by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      > if you're in a car and the fucking wheel falls off making you crash into someone you're still at fault currently from an insurance perspective

      You are not at fault from any perspective (insurance or otherwise), unless it was your fault the wheel fell off. Now, if you knew the wheel was badly damaged, and chose to drive around anyway, that's another matter. If it then falls off and causes a crash and kills someone, you can be charged with manslaughter. But if it fell off because of a manufacturing defect, it's the manufacturer who's responsible (and can be charged). And if it fell off because you just had work done on the car and the mechanic forgot to tighten the bolts holding it on, that's who is responsible.

      Depending where you live, your insurance might pay regardless. That's called "no-fault insurance". The goal is to avoid expensive disputes about who is responsible. But that's another matter.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    35. Re:More importantly... by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

      You are overcomplicating again.

      First finders are actually the reptilian creatures with zip-on human skin who infiltrate and accompany human treasure hunting parties. When a discovery is made they unzip the skin and expose their true form, diverting the humans from their quest by eating out the insides then donning their skins to claim and salvage the loot. International law is much like international finance where the physical imbibing of flesh merges identity sufficiently to prove their claims in front of a judge if need be. Though it is becoming easier to find a judge who has a zipper.

      So take care of yourself out there and watch for zippers. Some have also begun to use Velcro.

      --
      <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    36. Re:More importantly... by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      After reading that paper, I'd like to bring up two different _concepts_.

      1: An automated, autonomous tool (human control limited to turn on/turn off or other minimal intervention)
      2: A tele-presence tool, or remotely controlled stand-in for an operator (human control dominating activity).

      The issue here seems to be that the law wants to call both of these "robots" in different contexts.

      The answer is simple: declare "robot" to be a vague and undefined legal term, and define two new legal terms for the two different concepts; then, re-write all laws that use "robot" based on the two new terms.

      Is that too simple?

    37. Re:More importantly... by Xest · · Score: 1

      You seem to have disagreed with me, then agreed with me, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at. On one hand you've created a convoluted example about theorised maps and then you've pointed out that maritime law already stipulates that you have to get to the wreck, whether that's physically with a person, using a robot, or just using a massive winch off the side of a ship.

      This is already established in maritime law, so why overcomplicate it with meaningless examples about theoretical discovery?

      You've effectively proven my point and done the exact thing I was pointing out is meaningless, you've made an argument for argument's sake (and lawyers do this to keep themselves in business) not because there is any merit to the argument, because the law already sufficiently covers it but simply for the sake of argument. If you already recognise pre-existing maritime laws then what's the point of a discussion about theorised locations? What does it have to do with anything, and how does it change the issue when we already know that's not sufficient to claim salvage rights because maritime law has long recognised that there's a big difficulty difference between knowing or guessing where a wreck is and actually physically getting to it?

  2. Oink Oink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our robotic pig overlords.

  3. Please Pile On More Laws. by zenlessyank · · Score: 0

    One can never have enough laws. More laws please. No one should be able to escape the guilt. A guilty society is a controlled society.

    1. Re:Please Pile On More Laws. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yep... because protecting the freedom of electronic equipment is such an *important* goal for liberty...

      It's just like worrying about the 'rights' of corporations - they have none, only human beings have rights, you may as well try to oppress a hammer or enslave a brick.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:Please Pile On More Laws. by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      If Corporations had no rights the FBI would have no problem compelling Apple to build their back door to the iPhone. I'm not for a moment suggesting corporations do not abuse power, or that their lobbying (individual lobbying in general as well) is not destroying our representation and American politics. However there is no reason the government should be able to make companies do their bidding.

    3. Re:Please Pile On More Laws. by RDW · · Score: 1

      Surely robots only need 3 Laws?

    4. Re:Please Pile On More Laws. by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      It's the humans that need more laws.

    5. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Your conclusion is false. Corporate employees are still people and have rights. Since compelling apple means compelling the people that remains a rights issue.

      You dont need abstract entities to have rights to preserve any current liberties. You need to revoke them to protect a great many individual liberties that are being steadily eroded because those entities are given all the rights of people while having none of the constraints and refusing to accept any of the responsibilities.

      At the botom of every supply chain is slavery. Old fashion whips and chains unpaid slavery. Every product from gravestones to iphones to chocolate is made from resources harvested by slaves. A situation that exists only because the end of the supply chains are non humans that get rights.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    6. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone is off their meds again...

      I know where gravestones come from. There is a quarry close to my home. I know people who work there, they are all paid. What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think those employees are only for show, and some kind of zombie slaves come out at night and do the real work?

    7. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's saying that the pickaxes are slaves. Especially since the comment earlier in this thread by the same author said "try to oppress a hammer or enslave a brick".

    8. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Who is the slave with solar generated electricity? Bear in mind that the sun is burning because of natural laws, and does so regardless of whether we draw power from it or not.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    9. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You forget the rare earth minerals in the panels. Nearly all the world's supply comes from mines in the eastern DRC where the workforce is entirely slave labour.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:Please Pile On More Laws. by Koen+Lefever · · Score: 1

      Surely robots only need 3 Laws?

      R. Daneel Olivaw disagrees.

      --
      /. refugees on Usenet: news:comp.misc
    11. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      While some solar cells use exotic and rare materials, the standard version (over 95% of all solar cells) on the market uses almost exclusively silicon and aluminum (the two most abundant metals in the earth's crust) for the cell. The only modestly rare element used in many solar cells' construction is silver, which isn't even considered a rare earth element, and only a very tiny amount is needed per cell for its back contact. The silver isn't even technically required if one is willing to take a modest efficiency loss (such as what would be adequate for a solar powered calculator, for instance). On the subject of mining silver, while it is true that some silver mines in the world are driven by slave labour, most of the top ten largest ones are not.

      Try again.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    12. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Tin and coltane which are common in all electronics including the electronic parts of solar panels.

      Now ill be happy to consider solar to be one of the least affected products but unaffected ? Nope.

      Hell slavery is even rife in the timbre industry. So you cant buy a wooden chair without good odds there was slavery in the supply chain. 70% of all chocolate is made from beans harvested by kidnapped child slaves. Coffee is about the same. Yeah its depressing as hell. Consumer advocacy doesnt work - ellse one of the exposes on the chocolate industry in the last 25 years wpuld have made some difference. Market conpetition doesnt stop it, in fact it cements. No chocolate company can stop using slave beans because they are cheaper and you cant compete with evil without doing evil yourself. The only thing that works is government. Its what ended slavery in the 19th century and its thinly veilzed still legal version known as peonage in 1940.

      Nothing else has ever done it.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I was only drawing attention to the fact that when the supply is a natural resource, and the availability of that resource is not affected by cultural climate because there is no particular place on the globe where it is especially dominant, and therefore is not potentially subject to the tolerance of slave labour in specific regions, and especially if the availability of the resource is unaffected by whether or not you actually even use it in the first place, then it is pretty far stretch to say that the availability of that resource intrinsically depends upon slave labour. Solar is simply the most obvious example of this that I could think of.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    14. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      So fine. The 3 or 4 things in he world thats true off is great. But policy should be build around preventing the bad stuff. Especially when there is a great deal of it around. You cant base policy around the goid extremes. It must be based around the bad extremes because its the only tool we have to deal with them.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    15. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      While there may be relatively few resources whose availability is not typically unaffected by consumption, there are no lack of resources that are available in numerous places around the globe. You mentioned lumber as one example that can involve slave labour, but by no means is that necessarily reflective of what one can expect. regardless of where they live. Wood imported into the USA from Canada, for instance, which is among the two nations' largest import/export trades with eachother is most definitely *not* obtained through the result of slave labour.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    16. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Compelling Apple to do something is not the same as compelling Apple employees to do something. Apple employees work there voluntarily, presumably for the money. If some Apple employees object to doing something, Apple can hire people who won't object and have them do it. (This works better for legal values of "something".)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    17. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      And much of the wood coming out of the Amazon is - often the slaves are the very people who used to live in the area that was clear-cut by criminals last year.

      If crime was one corporation - that corporation would make more money every year than the top-50 fortune-500 companies combined. It's the largest employer on earth - by far and the vast majority of it's employees are ordinary people just doing a job that they have no idea is not legitimate.

      Think about that... There's absolutely no way that much money can consistently be hidden in the economy, there's no way to hide that big a chunk of the global GDP - unless a great deal of the money that those companies made, is also part of the money that crime makes. In other words - when there's a scandal like last year when Goldman Sach's was caught illegally offering bank accounts and investment services to drug cartells and terrorists - don't be surprized. Most banks have to be busy laundering big crime's money for them or the economy as a whole would collapse. Goldman just got caught, and it's more than money laundering, a great deal of the crime profits must actually be PART of the corporate profits or it is just mathematically impossible for there to be that much.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    18. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      No. Nobody who works for apple has agreed to do whatever the GOVERNMENT says while they do, they only agreed to obey their bosses at apple. If the government wants to force apple to do something - they are forcing the PEOPLE at apple to do it. Apple doesn't really exist, it's an imaginary abstract entity. You can't compel imaginary entities to do stuff. You are always compelling the people doing the imagining.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    19. Re: Please Pile On More Laws. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Apple, Inc. is not an imaginary entity, just abstract. It consists of some legal formalities and some human beings in various roles. It works according to law, and has assorted abilities and requirements, assigned by law. Apple, Inc. is no more imaginary than a computer program.

      If Apple, Inc. is legally compelled to do something, then how that gets done is the responsibility of the people running Apple, Inc. Typically, such things are done by paying people to do them, whether the people are regular employees, contractors already on the job, newly hired contractors, or some combination thereof. No individual is forced to do anything, although individuals who refuse to cooperate may be subject to some sort of penalty depending on their relationship with Apple, Inc. If Apple, Inc. cannot hire people to do what is required for some reason, that's something for representatives of Apple, Inc. to take up with the courts.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. The part nearly all current definitions miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    autonomy.

    Robots work based on stored directions, without needing direct human control. None of the current "robots" (other than those in manufacturing) are actually autonomous. The experiments in walking, yes, as the determination of "how" is done by the machine itself, not the person that directs "where" to walk.

    The others are actually "drones", being fully controlled by a human or (in some cases, an animal).

    1. Re:The part nearly all current definitions miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Re: "None of the current "robots" (other than those in manufacturing) are actually autonomous."

      Wow. Are you a judge? Because you have some seriously outdated misconceptions.

      You've never seen a Roomba? How about the Google Autonomous Car? Tesla Roadster? ThinkGeek sells a USB nerf missile launcher that can be programmed to automatically track human faces and shoot them with foam missiles.

      The AUVs used by the Navy to conduct sidescan sonar surveys: yup, totally autonomous.

      Excluding the autonomous cars, I haven't even touched on the fact that the world's best "Go" player is currently tied with an autonomous robot.

    2. Re:The part nearly all current definitions miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is that correct? Going back years there have been bomb disposal "robots". They were all actually remote operated "drones" according to you. But when they were created, the term drone didn't exist, or at least not in that context. Are you just defining this your own way, completely ignoring historical context for your own convenience to package everything neatly into your world? That would mean you're redefining words at a whim. Now, I realize that words change meaning, but that's typically via a cultural shift, not what some guy thinks, and when many "drones" are in fact self sufficient at some capacity (able to return home when lost signal) and many "robots" are not, then it seems the cultural shift needed to redefine a word is lacking.

      This isn't meant as an attack, just to demonstrate why this is a problem that's not so easily solved.

    3. Re:The part nearly all current definitions miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bomb disposal "robot" was never a robot, because it lacks automated features. I've never heard one single automated feature in one, though i am not in the field. Otherwise all remotely controlled toys would be robots too. I've never heard of definition of robot which does not have automation as the main defining feature.

    4. Re:The part nearly all current definitions miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize that words change meaning, but that's typically via a cultural shift

      Imagine being a research scientist or engineer who uses precise language in his or her trade while working on a new widget, culture comes along, appropriates the language you have used for the last 30 years, uses it incorrectly and decides to redefine the terms.

    5. Re:The part nearly all current definitions miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically a robot is a machine that does a job. It can be automatic, remote controlled, teleoperated, autonomous, semi-autonomous, or mixed initiative. It doesn't have to be autonomous. An "autonomous robot" has to be autonomous, but autonomous robots are a subcategory of robots, they're not everything in the category "robot".

      "drone" is also a subcategory of "robot" - it fills the automatic/remote controlled/teleoperated niche.

      According to the IEEE standard (1872-2015, sorry, paywalled), "autonomous robot" is a role that a robot can take on at a given level in the control structure, not a property of a robot as a whole.

      Example:
      (1) If a ground robot is following a series of waypoints provided by the operator, is it autonomous? No, it's automatic - it has no ability to decide which waypoint to visit next.
      (2) If that robot is capable of avoiding obstacles as it moves from one waypoint to the next, is it autonomous? Yes and no - it is still automatic with respect to selecting waypoints, but it is autonomous with respect to the path taken to reach the waypoint.
      (3) If that robot is running a TSP solver and using terrain information to plan which order to visit the waypoints in, is it autonomous? Yes, as long as the map (and therefore the plan) is periodically updated on the basis of locally sensed information.

    6. Re:The part nearly all current definitions miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, remote controlled toys are robots. You can't meaningfully define "robot" in such a way that you exclude toys and include research robots without saying "excluding toys", unless you want a definition that requires different terms for the same hardware depending on how it's controlled. If I take an autonomous robot, and I use the provided joystick (or the arrow keys) to drive it to its start point, did it suddenly stop being a robot just because I teleoperated it?

    7. Re:The part nearly all current definitions miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what are called drones nowadays used to be called RC toys. So if all robots are drones, and RC toys are not robots, and RC toys are drones, it follows that there are no robots.

    8. Re:The part nearly all current definitions miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A washing machine is a robot?

    9. Re:The part nearly all current definitions miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It meets wikipedia's general agreement among experts, and the publicof a robot, although it states that "There is no consensus on which machines qualify as robots".

  5. if it had a real brain feelings conscience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then we could punish it so it would learn better... & keep dreaming..? ^^cease fire^^ in the moms we trust...

    1. Re:if it had a real brain feelings conscience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's called Deep Q Reinforcement learning.

  6. Robot or Not? by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

    They need to listen to Jon Siracusa's Robot or Not podcast.

  7. Robot Sow Confusion... by sacrilicious · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... is troubling. Imagine an army of robotic pigs with no clear instructions on what to do or where to go.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    1. Re:Robot Sow Confusion... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Imagine an army of robotic pigs with no clear instructions on what to do or where to go.

      Washington DC

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Robot Sow Confusion... by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      LOL

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  8. Use the source, Judge by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Rossum's Universal Robots, aka R.U.R.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Use the source, Judge by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but those are what became (in the 1950's) called androids.

      However robot did used to mean autonomous machine (again, in the 1950s). So C3PO and R2D2 were later called robots by that meaning. Unfortunately telefactor is too clumsy a word for newspapers, and the media are notorious for not respecting fine distinctions of meaning. So currently robot is almost without an understandable meaning. You know that it means either some sort of machine, or something acting as the speaker presumes a machine would act, and that's about it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  9. Droids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look sir, Droids!

  10. It's Polish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It means "Worker."

  11. Normal by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Small wonder that they can't differentiate between a waldo and a robot since they can't do it with drones and remote control copters either.

  12. World's End. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Robot" means "slave."

    1. Re:World's End. by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      "Robot" means "slave."

      *Downs Pint* Ok guys lets Booboo

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  13. author cannot tell human from robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The author misread the first case.

    From the article: "a client of a robotics firm sued because, rather than send human technicians to resolve an installation problem, the robotics firm sent two robots named Al Bove and Al Treu"

    From the actual court decision: the client "hired two "robot technicians", Al Bove and Al Treu, to install the system. Neither technician proved sufficiently skilled to solve the problems which arose...." http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/17/151/2488678/

    1. Re:author cannot tell human from robots by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That sounds like something out of an Asimov book.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:author cannot tell human from robots by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No, Asimov didn't go in much for humor. But it could be from a parody of such a book.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  14. Let's clear this up right now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robot is the Czech word for slave.

    Resistance is futile.

  15. A robot is... by sbaker · · Score: 2

    The definition I've always had in my head goes something like:

            A robot is a computer that can interact with the world using sensors and moving parts.

    Well...kinda...a radio controlled "Robot Wars" thing isn't a robot, it's a radio controlled toy - it needs autonomy...so I wouldn't call it a "Robot". On the other hand, my PC has "sensors" (the mouse and keyboard) - but it doesn't have hands, legs or wheels (unless you count the spinning hard drive) - so it's not a robot either. My home thermostat has a sensor and can open and close the ducting vents. It has a computer inside so it's a "Robot"....hmmm - not sure I like that - maybe the robot has to be able to move itself around. A robot-arm in (say) a car factory - can move the arm around, but not move bodily around the world...so it's a robot according to my original definition...but not if I change the definition to exclude my thermostat. My car isn't a robot - although it has a computer that handles a lot of the work (electronic throttle, ignition, brakes) - a 'driverless' car, however is clearly a robot in my mind. But a car is still a robot if I sit inside and tell it where to take me by typing "221B Baker Street, London" - but not if I have a steering wheel to tell it where to go, even if it has automatic lane-keeping and will stop me from rear-ending the car in front. OK - so that's fairly clear. But what about if I have to tell some hypothetical car: "Take the next left turn...go a bit faster than the speed limit please...go right at the fork in the road." - is it a robot now? Mmmmm - not sure. Maybe if I tell it to take the next turn by nudging a joystick, it's just a car with sophisticated lane-keeping and maybe if I have a speech interface to control the exact same software/behavior, it's a robot? We're in a very, very grey area there.

    So this is a hard thing to define. I think there is a continuum from the car that knows from data from your toothbrush that your teeth need polishing and automatically takes you to the dentist's office when there is a two hour gap in your schedule...down to my current car...in which the computer decides that I'll over-rev the engine if I push harder on the gas pedal and it's not going to let me do that.

    Legally, you may need to impose a hard distinction somewhere between those two extremes - but it's going to be completely arbitrary. In the end, a word like "robot" has to be consigned to the pile of words like "home" or "food" that have fuzzy definitions and shouldn't be used in a situation where a binary choice has to be made. It's not really like the word "adult" that has a specific meaning that takes effect precisely at midnight on the 18th anniversary of your birth.

    Law-makers and judges need to pass more specific legislation about the specific attributes of robots that require legal decisions.

    So, for example a ("robotic") car where the human has the ability to override the speed and direction, regardless of the road conditions, may need to be insured by the individual - but a car that decides the speed and direction for itself and always overrides the human if the conditions require it to might require to be covered under the manufacturers' insurance. Doesn't matter what you *call* it - it only matters what functions are automated.

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
    1. Re:A robot is... by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      hmmm.... interesting decomposition. I agree with most if not all your points.

      I'll raise one example for thought: the Stability Program in my car . The system can bring the car to an almost stop if need be - it doesn't (directly) steer, control is limited to reduce engine RPM, gear selection, and brakes. Airbags are still the final solution.

      I can press a button to disable it (must disable for launch-control). However - should conditions warrant the system will re-enable itself. Anti-lock brakes can't be disabled - only the combined ESP (engine RPM, stability program, and traction control).

      Going too fast around a corner - brakes are generally applied, engine RPM cut, and brakes applied such that direction is altered. Each wheel brake can be applied individually and on slippery surfaces this alters the direction of the vehicle. It stabilizes the direction & speed of the car.

      I'm not suggesting that my car is a robot - as it doesn't have any autonomous features (I still need to firmly grip the steering wheel). Thinking strictly about this one component that controls the braking system - how would you characterize this and who is responsible? It isn't a thermostat.

    2. Re:A robot is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No computer required - there are lots of robots that don't have computers or programming of any sort. See BEAM robots and Braitenberg vehicles and Mousey the JunkBot.

      BEAM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BEAM_robotics
      Braitenberg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braitenberg_vehicle
      Mousey the JunkBot: http://makezine.com/projects/mousey-the-junkbot/

    3. Re:A robot is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it depends on whether the control system is a "computer" or not - the definition for that should be (IMHO) Turing-competeness. Also, you're assuming that I believe that BEAM/Braitenberg/Mousey are "robots" - and I don't think they are. A machine can have purpose and control without being a robot. I have an old clockwork toy that drives around the floor - and when it bumps into something, a clever little mechanical thing turns it around and sends if off in another direction. Such a thing behaves more or less like the original Roomba robot vacuum cleaners.

      When you define a word rigorously (as I attempted to do) - you always get corner cases that don't fit. That's why Pluto isn't a planet anymore.

          -- Steve

    4. Re:A robot is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a good answer. I merely point out that using a word like "Robot" to determine legal status is fuzzy thinking. The law needs to be super-specific. In the case of cars, if the computer controls both steering and speed and refuses to obey my commands when there is danger - then I'd say that I'm no longer "in control" so the car should be insured by its manufacturer. If I do have control of speed and steering - at least in an emergency situation - then the responsibility for accidents has been handed to me, personally - and I can't expect the manufacturer to accept liability for a control-induced crash. So I should have to insure the car.

      In other situations, other criteria might apply. So when VW's falsified their emissions control "robot", they are responsible for the consequences. But if I add a nitro tank, rebore the cylinders, remove the air filter and put a low back-pressure exhaust system on one of their cars - then I'm responsible for the emissions.

      Saying "Robots can do this but not that" is a painful way to write laws because we don't define what a robot is - and the law may needlessly restrict some classes of robot. This is precisely the case with the word "Drone" - which is kinda a "quadcopter" but ought to be "autonomously controlled flying object" because an R/C helicopter, an R/C drone and an R/C scale model of a Cessna should be essentially identical from a legal perspective - and an autonomous model Cessna with cameras and such should be a "Drone".

          -- Steve

  16. Here's the problem by dfn5 · · Score: 2

    They prefer the term "Artificial Person".

    --
    -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
  17. The definition of "robot" is time-dependent by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A robot is a machine that can do a human's job. Over time, we cease to think of these jobs as human occupations, and thus we cease to think of the devices as robots. Consider these occupations:

    • Elevator operator
    • Washerwoman (it's old enough that I won't say "washerperson")
    • Computer (yes, that was an occupation)
    • Telephone answering service person
    • Telephone operator
    • Copyist
    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:The definition of "robot" is time-dependent by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Very nicely worded.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  18. This is settled Law by aaron1812 · · Score: 1

    http://www.maximumfun.org/2010...

  19. Aww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here I was looking forward to nice epistemological debate about a robot-pig called "Confusion" holding a law-degree...

  20. adaptability is the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A machine becomes a robot when it can
    make decisions and adapt to changing conditions.
    It becomes AI when it can adapt to unpredictable
    situations.

  21. Industrial robots are preprogrammed by evanh · · Score: 1

    Human control is done while offline, so they are easy to call a robot.

  22. Need a better word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Robot is an easy word to remember, but it's just too vague. It doesn't properly convey the level of processing occuring on the device itself or whether it's controlled remotely or not.

  23. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically, an "immobot" - a robot that is incapable of moving around in the world (like a smart home).