Autonomous Robot Intentionally Hurts People To Make Them Bleed (fastcompany.com)

Asimove's first law of robotics has been broken, writes an anonymous reader, sharing this article from Fast Company: A Berkeley, California man wants to start a robust conversation among ethicists, philosophers, lawyers, and others about where technology is going -- and what dangers robots will present humanity in the future. Alexander Reben, a roboticist and artist, has built a tabletop robot whose sole mechanical purpose is to hurt people... The harm caused by Reben's robot is nothing more than a pinprick, albeit one delivered at high speed, causing the maximum amount of pain a small needle can inflict on a fingertip.
Though the pinpricks are delivered randomly, "[O]nce something exists in the world, you have to confront it. It becomes more urgent," says the robot's creator. "You can't just pontificate about it.... " But the article raises an interesting question. Is he responsible for the pain which his robot inflicts?

Comments

Is he responsible for the pain?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering it's the intended purpose of the device, yes. This isn't a robot gone amok and there is no ethical quandry. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Is he responsible for the pain?

[mindwhip]

exactly... this is nothing more than a very elaborate bear trap. Not a true AI acting on its own

Responsibility

[bigdavex]

But the article raises an interesting question. Is he responsible for the pain which his robot inflicts?

Here's a boring answer. Yes. Why the fuck not?

Re:Responsibility

[NicBenjamin]

But the article raises an interesting question. Is he responsible for the pain which his robot inflicts?

Here's a boring answer. Yes. Why the fuck not?

I have to agree here.

Only a philosophy major or an idiot could think you could create a pain-causing robot and claim that it was the robot's fault when the damn thing caused people pain.

That's not how the three laws work

[RogueWarrior65]

That's not a robot. That's a dumb mechanism. The Three Laws only apply to AI-based robots. Otherwise, the decisions are that of the programmer, a flawed human being.

Re: Oh okay..

[hackwrench]

No, it can hurt you... it just can't be held responsible, and that's what the earlier posts were going for. It also can't be a violation of Asimov's laws as the robot was never taught them or given a system with them baked in.

Re: Oh okay..

[ultranova]

But then it kept being brought back far too often, and readers took it too seriously.

It kept being brought back because the robot series is all about how badly any attempt to mechanize ethics fails. The Three Laws were, in a sense, the villain - or at least the antagonist - of the series.

If we ever get sapient robots, and conclude that it's okay to treat them as servants, I'd suggest using "do as you think I'd want you to do" or "treat everyone as you think they'd want to be treated" as the law.

Re: Oh okay..

[mwvdlee]

As I understand it, Asimov explicitely made his laws of robotics to cause conflicts that he could explore in his stories.
They were designed to fail.

Re: Oh okay..

[Anonymous Coward]

You've clearly never read Asimov. His writings about robots are morally sensitive and complex. If he thought of robots as an allegory for African Americans, then he thought they're superior to most humans, as that's his attitude about robots.

Maybe you should get that chip off your should and actually read what you're blindly complaining about.

Re: Oh okay..

[geggam]

Until a robot decides to help someone who wants to commit suicide. Then you are going to have to figure out exceptions... because there always are exceptions, except to the always exceptions rule.