Slashdot Mirror
Boston Dynamics Is Teaching Its Robot Dog To Fight Back Against Humans (theguardian.com)
Zorro shares a report from The Guardian: Boston Dynamics' well-mannered four-legged machine SpotMini has already proved that it can easily open a door and walk through unchallenged, but now the former Google turned SoftBank robotics firm is teaching its robo-canines to fight back. A newly released video shows SpotMini approaching the door as before, but this time it's joined by a pesky human with an ice hockey stick. Unperturbed by his distractions, SpotMini continues to grab the handle and turn it even after its creepy fifth arm with a claw on the front is pushed away. If that assault wasn't enough, the human's robot bullying continues, shutting the door on Spot, which counterbalances and fights back against the pressure. In a last-ditch effort to stop the robot dog breaching the threshold, the human grabs at a leash attached to the back of the SpotMini and yanks. Boston Dynamics describes the video as "a test of SpotMini's ability to adjust to disturbances as it opens and walks through a door" because "the ability to tolerate and respond to disturbances like these improves successful operation of the robot." The firm helpfully notes that, despite a back piece flying off, "this testing does not irritate or harm the robot." But teaching robots to fight back against humans may might end up harming us.
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
"Cats like plain crisps"
Arguably the robot didn't fight, it adjusted to the situation as road blocks were put in its way. It didn't attack the human in any way, it just continued to try and go through the door. By this definition roomba vacuums "fights back" when items are placed in its path. The only difference is the robot dog kept trying to go forward again and again whereas the vacuum would turn and do something else or eventually give up.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
Robots being unable to determine what constitutes harm
Robots deciding that they are are human beings, too.
Robots deciding that only they are human beings
Robots rationalizing a zeroth law that prioritizes "humanity" over individual humans.
Robots deciding what constitutes "humanity"
The three laws were meant to drive plots, not be pragmatically implementable. They could even be seen as a satire of the idea of simplistically designed ethical systems.
A robot dog doesn't need to fight back. All it needs to do is say, at a high volume, "get out of the way or I'll rip you in half."
That should work on about 99% of the population.
The robot is not fighting back. Watch the damn video. The robot is simply being persistent in completing the task when faced with the obstacle of being blocked by a hockey stick or being dragged away from completing it's task of opening a door. British press sensational bullshit.
But teaching robots to fight back against humans may might end up harming us.
This is precisely why we have the Three Laws of Robotics.
I would like to say "ignore them at your peril," but the reality is more like "ignore them at the perial of the rest of humanity." I am pretty sure that they will put in some sort of special code so that the robots never fight back against a Boston Dynamics employee.
The best part of the Three Laws of Robotics is that they instantly reveal anyone who hasn't actually read Asimov's stories on the Three Laws of Robotics. Specifically, you.