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.
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
What makes you think they would let us flip their kill switches?
See here for one example.
... 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.
Will a mechanical arm that bolts rivets onto the body of a FIAT be paying taxes anytime soon? It seems highly unlikely
If Fiat can get $100,000 worth of work from a robot, and not pay taxes on the robot's work, then effectively, the government is paying corporations to eliminate jobs. Fiat paying "productivity taxes" on the robot will cover the "loss" to the government from the elimination of the job the robot takes. This lowers the incentive to automate, and keeps the government taxes as a percentage of production, rather than tied to personal income, for a more stable and "fair" tax structure.
DON'T DATE ROBOTS!!!
Thirty four characters live here.
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.
Well there's your problem.... this thing was switched to kill...
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
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.
Not for that guy, though. His future looks pretty good to me.
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!
Why would you put a switch that then makes them kill when flipped?
Robots should be taxed to cover the universal basic income for those whose jobs they are taking.
What a daft idea. If you tax stuff, you merely tax all stuff beyond what a person needs for comfort. For example, happiness doesn't correlate with income past lower-middle class or so. Once your needs are met and nobody is pointing at you for being a reject all the time, more stuff is largely irrelevant to your well-being. If we only taxed people on having stuff beyond that point, then we would still reward success (especially the spectacular kind) but we would not punish people simply for existing, or treat the citizenry like livestock.
However, IMO taxing stuff is also daft, because it's hard to keep track of all the stuff. People then have incentive to hide their stuff, and stuff is surprisingly easy to hide. It takes money to find the stuff, and complicating the system is not the goal either. To me, the solution is to tax profit. Tax people for improving their economic situation beyond the level of well-being, and do it in a graduated fashion so as to minimally impede progress. The people with the most therefore pay the most, which is fair since they are getting the most.
IANAEconomist, but I have been thinking about this a lot lately as I age and look to settle down in the dirt somewhere. Nobody should be paying property taxes on a basic residence in which they live. No one should be paying income taxes on money they need to buy necessities like clothing, and then pay sales taxes on it all over again. But why should a second home not be taxed? That seems perfectly reasonable. Turn it into a profit center, and it will pay its own taxes, though whether or not one can manage that is irrelevant to the concept.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"