Slashdot Mirror
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?
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?
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.
Here's a boring answer. Yes. Why the fuck not?
-Dave
If you build a device and set it in motion to cause harm to another person, you're committing the crime of assault and battery. If it inflicts deadly harm, then you're a murderer.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
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.
Seriously? No one at Slashdot caught Asimov's name being misspelled? Wow.
Ken
In this case, doing harm was the intent of the machine and/or it's programming. As such, the maker is clearly responsible. If the harm was unintended/unexpected and there were no clear negligence, then I'd have a completely different conversation on this.
Things get more difficult as you get further away from the original source, but -- generally speaking -- if the result is generally what you intended from an action (or series of actions), then it's pretty clear that you're responsible. This is even true where there is a human intermediary. If I pay a hitman to kill my ex wife, I can still be arrested for first degree murder -- even if he kills the wrong person by mistake.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
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.