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.]"
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.
AC asks:
When a robot is designed to kill in violation of Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics, then Newton's Third Law comes into play:
-- Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
This law operates even in the absence of robots.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
How would those laws be applied to military robots designed to kill? Replace "human being" with with "American"?
They wouldn't be, obviously. Robots don't have to obey the three laws unless we build them that way.
From Alastair Reynolds:
She snapped her attention back to the snake. “Are you Asimov-compliant?”
“No,” the robot said, with a sting of indignation.
In case anyone is interested, that's from the book "Century Rain" by Alastair Reynolds. Not a bad read.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Yeah its like if a deathbot also has a can-opener mode, and you call it a can-opener not a deathbot, then that's OK.