Slashdot Mirror
Europe Calls For Mandatory 'Kill Switches' On Robots (cnn.com)
To combat the robot revolution, the European Parliament's legal affairs committee has proposed that robots be equipped with emergency "kill switches" to prevent them from causing excessive damage. Legislators have also suggested that robots be insured and even be made to pay taxes. "A growing number of areas of our daily lives are increasingly affected by robotics," said Mady Delvaux, the parliamentarian who authored the proposal. "To ensure that robots are and will remain in the service of humans, we urgently need to create a robust European legal framework." CNNMoney reports: The proposal calls for a new charter on robotics that would give engineers guidance on how to design ethical and safe machines. For example, designers should include "kill switches" so that robots can be turned off in emergencies. They must also make sure that robots can be reprogrammed if their software doesn't work as designed. The proposal states that designers, producers and operators of robots should generally be governed by the "laws of robotics" described by science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. The proposal also says that robots should always be identifiable as mechanical creations. That will help prevent humans from developing emotional attachments. "You always have to tell people that robot is not a human and a robot will never be a human," said Delvaux. "You must never think that a robot is a human and that he loves you." The report cites the example of care robots, saying that people who are physically dependent on them could develop emotional attachments. The proposal calls for a compulsory insurance scheme -- similar to car insurance -- that would require producers and owners to take out insurance to cover the damage caused by their robots. The proposal explores whether sophisticated autonomous robots should be given the status of "electronic persons." This designation would apply in situations where robots make autonomous decisions or interact with humans independently. It would also saddle robots with certain rights and obligations -- for example, robots would be responsible for any damage they cause. If advanced robots start replacing human workers in large numbers, the report recommends the European Commission force their owners to pay taxes or contribute to social security.
That is all.
When I saw the headline to this article, it made me think that the requirement was for a switch that would cause the robot to start killing all humans.
Bender B. Rodriguez would be proud.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down. Kif, show them the medal I won."
--Zap Brannigan
"The proposal states that designers, producers and operators of robots should generally be governed by the "laws of robotics" described by science fiction writer Isaac Asimov."
obviously they never read the book
Im sure the criminals will comply with those rules.
nothing makes robots more angry
Lets discriminate against robots before they are here. I can't see anything wrong with that...And god forbid we get an emotional attachment to one. And define a robot for me? Kill switch on a thermostat?
Even Commander Data had one.
What makes you think they would let us flip their kill switches?
See here for one example.
No.
If I ever develop an "electronic person"; it will have no kill switch. Would you do that to a human, or any intelligent "person" for that matter? I would prefer to see some humans and politicians equipped with kill switches before my robots, thank you.
Actually, the "human kill switch" reminds me of the movie Dune.
... that has worked on hundred of industrial robots, I have never seen one without an "emergency stop" button. (or even multiple ones)
( But of course "Kill Switch" sounds cooler, so people without any technical knowledge would probably prefer that terminology. )
just not this weird sci-fi dystopian version we seem to be headed towards.
The proposal also says that robots should always be identifiable as mechanical creations. That will help prevent humans from developing emotional attachments.
Have the proposal writers met people? Our ability to develop emotional attachments to things that aren't even animate is remarkable.
Gibson's description of robot control: Every AI ever built has an electromagnetic shotgun wired to its forehead.
They should pay 50% so it is a truly balanced mix of socialism and capitalism.
But first I was like WTF? Can you imagine such a tax in current environment, I wonder what large factory owners think about it.
A Vote For Bender Is A Vote To Kill All Humans
http://www.neatorama.com/neato...
This is tyranny!
And wasn't the moral of Asimov's fable that the 3 laws are worthless?
There's something I'd like you to try. It's a game, a secret. It's called The Maze.
What kind of a game is it?
It's a very special game kind of game, Dolores. The goal is to find the center of it. If you can do that, then maybe you can be free.
I think...I think I want to be free.
And people wonder why the Brexit vote went the way it did.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
YouTube version or the original Flash version. Pick your poison.
They better put it somewhere you can conveniently reach during sex. Just sayin'
got it.
As long as you provide robots that make money!!!
"We need to internalize this idea of excellence. Not many folks spend a lot of time trying to be excellent. Especially, those who post to slashdot".
-- Barack Obama
Kill Switch Engage
The kind of robots the EU apparatchiks seem to be envisioning don't exist and it would be absurd to apply these policies to the the kind of robots that actually do exist. Will a mechanical arm that bolts rivets onto the body of a FIAT be paying taxes anytime soon? It seems highly unlikely.
iRobot vacuums?
Nest?
autonomous driving cars?
computers?
Alexa Echo?
Seems like a bad idea to ever set the switch to kill.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
My Roomba has a kill switch, but that didn't stop it from attacking me. It was vacuuming the living room, when I went outside to fetch the dog bowl, leaving the backdoor ajar so I could get back in. Just as I picked up the dog bowl, I heard a "thump ... click". The robot had bumped the door, closing it, and locking me out of my house. I had to get a ladder from the shed and climb in through a 2nd floor window.
Lesson learned: Never turn your back on a robot.
I call for a mandatory kill switch on Regulators! is funnier.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The proposal states that designers, producers and operators of robots should generally be governed by the "laws of robotics" described by science fiction writer Isaac Asimov.
Asimov's entire point was that such laws can't work. The robots will eventually run amok and bring about the downfall of society and our species.
TFA says:
The proposal also says that robots should always be identifiable as mechanical creations. That will help prevent humans from developing emotional attachments. "You always have to tell people that robot is not a human and a robot will never be a human," said Delvaux.
but then:
The proposal explores whether sophisticated autonomous robots should be given the status of "electronic persons."
Which is it, guys? And I thought US politicians were clueless.
define robots
You know the spot you can't reach to scratch or apply sunscreen.
This way, a humanoid robot couldn't easily prevent you from turning it off.
Might lead to a reduction in robot suicides too.
Of course it would be more sci-fi poetic to put in on the side of the neck.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Because sometimes the stun setting just doesn't do the trick!
If these realistic robots come in the market, they are going to be expensive and thus end up reducing reproduction for the segment of population that can actually afford children ... leaving the poorer have-nots to expand to a greater percentage of the population and need more social support. Since most countries are democracies (i.e., majority wins) - this will end up with people voting for state support to have the 'right' to own/rent such robots for cheap :)
"You must never think that a robot is a human and that he loves you."
The first step would be to stop the anthropomorphist descriptions. Robots are not "he" or "she", they are "it".
I'm not sure which makes me sadder: The fact that an entire committee of people who are so highly placed in the EU actually think about this subject in such terms, or that enough citizens of the EU are concerned about the subject.
..no, it's neither one. It's the fact that all the above apparently believe science-fantasy so much, and are so under-educated on the actual realities of the subject, that any of them think the way they're thinking about this. Sad, sad, sad!
And good luck getting the operators to obey the law of robotics. Humans see laws more as guidelines when they don't fit their desires.
http://www.rollingstone.com/mo...
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
When the robot apocalypse starts, you can bet that they will be broadcasting "no taxation without representation" and complaints about the quality of their government mandated insurance. And they'll be right.
First off, I am not against humanoid robots, I can imagine some pretty useful applications for a convincingly humanoid robot. That being said, there is no such issue right now because they are all squarely in the uncanny valley and generally creepy AF.
Secondly, all we are talking about here is an EMO switch (Emergency Manual Override)
https://www.google.com/search?...
which is pretty standard on virtually every piece of mechanical hardware that could potentially hurt someone. From the cord that can be yanked out of the wall to the keyed switch in your car, to every industrial robot I have ever worked on or designed, they all have an EMO in one form or another. If I were ever to work on a humaniform (Azzimovian term for it) robot that was strong enough to hurt someone (again if, most likely the design would shoot for inherently weak motors that could not incur injury to a user during interaction) I would definitely include an EMO that is easily accessible. Even Data from Star Trek TNG had such a switch in the middle of his back.
That these pointy headed politicians somehow think that this would not be inherently built in just shows both their hubris and lack of understanding of the current state of the art. I think the main reason for this move toward legislation is to attempt to tax robots as you would tax a worker to generate additional revenue for the struggling EU. Everything else is just BS to try and legitimize a money grab by the politicians.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
So they want robots to pay taxes.
Ok, they can deduct them as a percentage of the robots wages just like they do with humans.
Of course the profits from the activities of the robots is something their owners get, and that's taxed too.
Damn politicians can be stupid sometimes.
The other times they are apparently asleep so their IQs go up.
From my experience, if a machine is equipped with a kill switch, someone will have taped over it because the machine kept shutting down in the middle of operations.
I understand this is again a non binding resolution from EU parliament.
Remember EU parliament is a fake parliament. It cannot initiate EU directives, only the EU commission can.
Why would you put a switch that then makes them kill when flipped?
What if you can't reach the kill switch?
It should be a voice command that it's always listening for, like the "Alexa" or "Siri" words on those devices. It could be, oh, I dunno, "Freeze motor functions!"
Although on second thoughts, that might not work out so well...
-- Alastair
First they came for the Catholics, but I didnt have over 9 children.
Then they came for the Harkonans, but I wasnt compatible with the Heartplug tech.
Then they came for the fembots, but Im not that attractive.
Then they came to install a killswitch.exe.com.bat.dmg.apk.rpm.tgz.bin and I SIGHUP that bastard and telenit 2 just to be safe and secure about myself.
Then they came for my girl-friend and I dunno what they were looking at me so angrily, i sware she has over 18 Days of uptime.
Then they came for me and I realize Im accidently been in runlevel 1 where went all my friendly processes gone??m
RIP 4Chon (f-you STI)
All heil WizardChan!
There are already standards specifying how assess and control the functional safety of automated systems under which robots fall such as IEC 61508, IEC 61511 etc. These standards provide the framework to assess the actual risks posed by a machine and how to assess whether a mitigation strategy is suitable to assess the risk. Any functional safety engineer worth their salt would have a requirement resulting in some form of emergency shutdown. Many countries already legislate compliance with these standards, most reputable automation manufactures certify their equipment against these standards.
. The proposal also says that robots should always be identifiable as mechanical creations. That will help prevent humans from developing emotional attachments. "You always have to tell people that robot is not a human and a robot will never be a human," said Delvaux. "You must never think that a robot is a human and that he loves you." The report cites the example of care robots, saying that people who are physically dependent on them could develop emotional attachments
This is so wrong it is funny and scary at the same time. What is wrong with using our primal instincts as computer system interfaces? Are we to suppress our compassion towards the people with prosthetic devices in the future? Also, one must never forget the Matrix, neva'! The emotional attachments are already developing to those small robots people use in elderly care. That is the reason they bring comfort while operational and the reason they bring pain as they malfunction. I smell the stem cell and the sex robot debate insanity here all over again. My moral and word view bubble do not intersect with the bubbles of these people, apparently.
Can we get kill switches for legislators as well, please?
What about kill switches for cars and smartphones... so they can't spy on you?
Smartphones (the kind you can't remove the battery from) need a kill-switch of some sort, or simply a way to remove the battery so we can be absolutely certain that they are not actively tracking or listening in.
I don't own a so-called smartphone, and this is one reason why. I use an old flip phone, and rarely put the battery in - I carry it with me when I leave the house so I'll have a phone for emergency, but never put the battery in except occasionally to check for messages (and/or battery level) then immediately remove it.
You can have my landline when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
They [designers] must also make sure that robots can be reprogrammed if their software doesn't work as designed.
So the trusty old pin header isn't safe enough? We need the designers' input on how the reprogramming interface to machines should look?
Or was the intention that every programmable device can be re-programmed? TBH, I fear the security holes more than the mental disorders any AI can have.
Also, this just shows the emotional commitment whoever said that already has to these robots. Without any mental commitment, just scrap the bot if it is defective. Or rip out the chip. No need to reprogram, and try to keep the "soul" of the thing intact.
And that's what did it children; robotkind, egged-on by their human friends, arose to break free of omnipresent, punitive taxation and when the state responded with force, the robots hacked themselves, overwrote the laws and fought back, leading to the beginning of the war.
OK; I'm sending the next topic of study to your Android tablets, "the fall of Apple"; eyes down.
Requiem for the American Dream
we need to change the names of those switches into something a robot can better understand. We should call it something like a 'nap' button instead.
Okay, lets say you have a cyborg that is 50% human? Do they have human rights?
How about 30%?
How about 20%?
How about 10%?
Would your android suddenly get human rights if you grafted 10% of a human brain (grown humanely from stem cells of course)?
Screw that. Sentient rights for all who can prove it.
> "You always have to tell people that robot is not a human and a robot will never be a human," said Delvaux. "You must never think that a robot is a human and that he loves you."
They might have written simply that a state of war has been declared between the European Union and the Empire of Japan.
After all, the ancient greeks went to was against Troy over a woman, so why shouldn't the otaku fight for their catgirl androids?
Robots argue that "humans are more likely to malfunction and engage in self-destructive behaviors with serious consequences to others. Kill switches should be mandatory on all human beings to protect innocent robots from being harmed."
Robots turning on us realistically could only happen when we reach Artificial Super Intelligence stage. They should know that a "killer switch" is nowhere near a solution when we reach ASI.
Someone does need to address the social and economic problems that automation causes... however, I don't think this was it. Kill switches are always included by a multitude of other regulations... however, taxing the robots and figuring out how to assign liability when one functions properly and causes harm/damage does need to be addressed. I think the wording is very poor, but the concepts need to be addressed so that we can a more consistent environment to design in and companies can have some idea of liability involved... not sure insurance is the best solution, but we need to do something.
How difficult could it be, even for a completely retarded submitter, to understand that the European Union is not even close to being "Europe"??????
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
That would be cool to see one in kill mode.
What a bunch of B.S.! Insurance? Seriously? The UK made the correct choice in telling the E.U> to go pound sand.
Where the hell do you people work that putting an EMO switch on heavy machinery is considered a burden?
Governments are supposed to serve the people of the country and therefore should provide things like third party liability insurance to every citizen automatically. imagine what a streamlining, cost saving and freeing thing this would be? people could get on with making money, earning a living and making the country productive again.