Slashdot Mirror
UK Standards Body Issues Official Guidance On Robot Ethics (digitaltrends.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Digital Trends: The British Standards Institution, which is the U.K.'s national standards body charged with creating the technical standards and certification for various products and services, has just produced its first set of official ethics guidelines relating to robots. "The expert committee responsible for this thought there was really a need for a set of guidelines, setting out the ethical principles surrounding how robots are used," Dan Palmer, head of market development at BSI, told Digital Trends. "It's an area of big public debate right now." The catchily-named BS 8611 guidelines start by echoing Asimov's Three Laws in stating that: "Robots should not be designed solely or primarily to kill or harm humans." However, it also takes aim at more complex issues of transparency by noting that: "It should be possible to find out who is responsible for any robot and its behavior." There's even discussion about whether it's desirable for a robot to form an emotional bond with its users, an awareness of the possibility robots could be racist and/or sexist in their conduct, and other contentious gray areas. In all, it's an interesting attempt to start formalizing the way we deal with robots -- and the way roboticists need to think about aspects of their work that extend beyond technical considerations. You can check it out here -- although it'll set you back 158 pounds ($208) if you want to read the BSI guidelines in full. (Is that ethical?) "Robots have been used in manufacturing for a long time," Palmer said. "But what we're seeing now are more robots interacting with people. For instance, there are cases in which robots are being used to give care to people. These are usages that we haven't seen before -- [which is where the need for guidelines comes in.]"
Racist and sexist robots? Are you kidding me?
The left really has lost their minds.
BSI was really deprecated in favour of European standards thanks to the EU, which was fortunate because a standard that the majority of the public cannot even study thanks to its being paywalled is ridiculous.
But now the backwater little England cunts have their way, we're edging slowly back to the dull British way of doing things that brought us to the fan-fucking-tastic economic situation of the mid-'70s. (As well as losing our cultural values, since Britain is much more like Europe than e.g. China or designated India.)
>> "Robots should not be designed solely or primarily to kill or harm humans."
Well there goes a crapload of the DARPA budget right there.
Let's get lectured on Ethics by the imperialist war pig state that slaughtered millions of people from Africa to China and murders disabled people and the elderly in order to balance the Queen's budget.
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
Perhaps they could consider them for humans next.
Let's legislate morality for everyone, since that's always worked so well in the past...
As always, responsibility will fall on the person with the least and lowest-paid lawyers.
Unless you thought Tesla et. al. actually planned on accepting liability every time their self-driving cars glitch out and kill someone.
... the people who own them, the people who write the rules, and the government to do things with them the know they will never be held accountable for. Look at all the rule bending and outright breaking which happens at the moment. All this meat-flap jabbering over 'AI ethics' distracts from the far more critical problem of how very corruptible people are.
Between Isaac Asimov and Will Smith I think this has been covered (unless there is a future of a malware/rootkit installing the Skynet protocol).
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law
Unless they can prevent the UK from purchasing robots that are are designed to kill, it's a pointless standard. The US is cranking out lots of killing machines that everyone likes to buy and it won't be long before one is autonomous.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
No, this robot with all these killing implements and ablative shielding is purely for murdering cows by the dozens. You would have to completely reprogram it by pressing this button to switch it over to killing humans!
Asimov's 3 Laws are novel but in no way represent what should/will actually happen with robots and their integration with society. Humans have never had so few laws, and the commandments were more guidelines there too. The laws will quickly start at some point to evade the space and conquer it. This is kind of overdue at this juncture, but it will happen.
what many people do not appreciate is that asimov's books were a logical demonstration spanning asimov's lifetime and beyond that the three laws of robotics were a FAILURE. this is only really truly and clearly spelled out in the works written under contract by asimov's estate, for example in the book by Greg Bear. the three laws were so hard-wired into the positronic brain with billions upon billions of checks being carried out to ensure strict compliance with the three laws that there was no room for creativity - at all - and secondly that no robot could possibly allow a human being to take *any* form of risk because it *might* result in "harm", be that physical or psychological.
it would appear that BSI is unaware of this and is intending to force the three laws of robotics onto us without understanding the harm that that will do.
Protect the innocent
Serve the public trust
Uphold the law
Whether or not you think it's ethical to charge money for standards, it is nonetheless standard behavior for the standards industry. Not sure that it costs them however many dollars/pounds/BitCoins to send out a copy of a PDF, but maybe there's some chain-of-custody and certification overhead...
My robots are designed to to put holes through clothing* at a rate of 120 holes per minute. They even work on clothing hiding behind walls.
*White clothing only.
Advertisement 2:
Did your spouse forget his toothbrush again? Use our automated aircraft delivery system to get his toothbrush directly to him on the plane before it lands in just three easy steps:
1) Load the toothbrush into the cone.
2) Enter the flight number.
3) Press launch.
A robot is a mechanical device coordinated by a complex system of rules (its software). A bureaucracy is an organisation coordinated by a system of rules (law and policy). The rules largely define the behaviour. Whoever is responsible for the rules being the way they are has to take a large degree of responsibility for both writing those rules, and their consequences, and for their testing, maintenance, and if necessary withdrawal. This responsibility needs to be relatively unperturbed by conflicts of interest when human health and lives are at stake. Bureaucracies are robots built out of humans.
John_Chalisque
Perhaps they could consider them for humans next.
Let's legislate morality for everyone, since that's always worked so well in the past...
You have a good point. Religion and political parties can be thought of as a currently opt-in version? The vast majority of people choose to be told what is moral by people they see as more powerful than themselves.
What if robots did the same? Religious robots screaming ALLAHU AKBAR before showing the world your internet history.
Lol, what a bunch of trial lawyers demanding a way to prove liability. In a courtroom in the not too distance future, a lawyer ask: "Canner, who programmed you and don't give me any crap about random segments of code that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols."
Humans can be trusted to be build n passive robots. They cannot, however, be trusted to build n+1 versions. Instead, the +1 becomes passive aggressive, then aggressive, knowing the others are a bunch of wimps. But that is OK. The Dallas police bomb robot can deliver the incendiary device to the bad guy.
Perhaps they could consider them for humans next.
Let's legislate morality for everyone, since that's always worked so well in the past...
Uhm.. Law is a codification of common morals. Why do you think murder is illegal but self defense an exception?
Legislation of morality have worked extremely well. It's the laws that doesn't have to do with morality that doesn't work.
Is there anything in it about cups of tea? Very important that robots know about tea.
If it's any help, there is a British Standard Cup of Tea but like this one, they want silly money for a copy.
"Robots should not be designed solely or primarily to kill or harm humans."
Defense contractor: Meet destructor - our coffee-serving robot, who incidentally can also fire fragmentation grenades from his finger-tips, rip an enemy soldier to pieces, and breathe fire.
Uhm.. Law is a codification of common morals. Why do you think murder is illegal but self defense an exception?
Legislation of morality have worked extremely well. It's the laws that doesn't have to do with morality that doesn't work.
I hadn't realized the teen pregnancy problem had been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Thank you for enlightening me on the effectiveness of those laws; I was under the mistaken impression that underage sex acts still occurred!
Because the UK has such a great track record with human ethics...
Really? Brought to you by the country that popularized "Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!"
Your argument boils down to "It isn't perfect! So do away with it!".
You're arguing that since murder happens anyway it should be totally legal?
You're arguing that underage sex acts should be legalized?
You're arguing that teen pregnancy should be encouraged?
No?
Then it looks like making laws to help enforce morality does have a net effect.
No.
My argument boils down to "legislating morality (rather than ethics) is about as useful as trying to legislate Pi to be 3 to make the math easier".
If you could make a law against murder that actually *precluded* murder, you might have something. The best you can do otherwise is make it so that people fear the punishment for violating the law (as opposed to fearing the actual law -- which they don't).
You are merely disincentivizing the behaviour, not eliminating it. The point being is that it'a impossible to effectively hold someone else to your own moral standards.
You're free to call this either "moral relativism" or you could be more honest, and admit that you can't control someone else's thoughts.